European Investigation Order
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the draft directive for a European investigation order, and the Government’s decision to opt into that draft directive.
As people have become more mobile, so too has crime, and that has serious consequences for our ability to bring criminals to justice. To deal with cross-border crime, countries enter into mutual legal assistance—MLA—agreements. Those agreements provide a framework through which states can obtain evidence from overseas. MLA has therefore been an important tool in the fight against international crime and terrorism. It has been crucial in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Hussein Osman, one of the failed terrorists from the 21/7 attacks five years ago, might not have been convicted had it not been for evidence obtained through MLA.
However, MLA has not been without its faults. The process is fragmented and confusing for the police and prosecutors, and it is too often too slow. In some cases it takes many months to obtain vital evidence. Indeed, in one drug trafficking case the evidence arrived in the UK after the trial had been completed. The European investigation order is intended to address those problems by simplifying the system, through a standardised request form and by providing formal deadlines for the recognition and execution of requests.
The Government have decided to opt into the EIO because it offers practical help for the British police and prosecutors, and we are determined to do everything we can to help them cut crime and deliver justice. That is what the police say the EIO will do. We wrote to every Association of Chief Police Officers force about the EIO, and not one said that we should not opt in. ACPO itself replied that
“the EIO is a simpler instrument than those already in existence and, provided it is used sensibly and for appropriate offences, we welcome attempts to simplify and expedite mutual legal assistance.”
However, I know that some hon. Members have concerns about the EIO, and I should like to address them in turn. The first is on the question of sovereignty. In justice and home affairs, there are many ideas coming out of Brussels, such as a common asylum policy, that would involve an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I will not sign up to those proposals, and I have made that clear to my European counterparts. However, the EIO directive does not incur a shift in sovereignty. It is a practical measure that will make it easier to see justice—British justice—done in this country.
The second concern is about burdens on the police. At a time when we are reducing domestic regulatory burdens on the police, I agree that it would be unacceptable to have them re-imposed by foreign forces. That is why we will seek to ensure that there is a proportionality test, so that police forces are not obliged to do work in relation to trivial offences, and that forces will be able to extend deadlines when it is not possible to meet them. I want to be clear that the EIO will not allow foreign authorities to instruct UK police officers on what operations to conduct, and it will not allow foreign officers to operate in the UK with law enforcement powers.
The third concern is about legal safeguards. We will seek to maintain the draft directive’s requirement that evidence should be obtained by coercive means, for example through searching a premises, only where the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. Requests for evidence from foreign authorities will still require completion of the same processes as in similar domestic cases. In order to search a house, for example, police officers will still need to obtain a warrant.
The execution of the EIO must be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That means that there must be a clear link between the alleged criminality and the assistance requested, otherwise complying with the request would be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR, on private and family life.
By opting in to the EIO at this stage, we have the opportunity to influence its precise content. We know that the existing draft is not perfect, and we are confident that we will be able to change it in negotiations. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones has already had discussions with her German counterpart, and we are confident that we will shape the draft directive so that it helps us to fight crime and deliver justice while protecting civil liberties and avoiding unduly burdening the police. That is why the civil liberties group, Justice, says that
“on balance it is better for the UK to engage in this area than be ousted onto the periphery of evidence in cross border cases.”
I ask hon. Members to remember this: the EIO will apply to both prosecutors and defence lawyers, which means that it can be used to prove British subjects innocent abroad, as well as to prosecute the guilty at home.
The EIO will allow us to fight crime and deliver justice more effectively. It does not amount to a loss of sovereignty. It will not unduly burden the police. It will not incur a loss of civil liberties. It is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I do not want to worry the right hon. Lady unduly at our daily meeting, but I broadly welcome this statement. I suspect that I am just a short preliminary to the real opposition on the matter, which is the Brokeback tendency behind her. [Hon. Members: “Bareback!”] Or bareback tendency, even, which adds a whole new dimension.
We supported the Stockholm programme in December, which included the decision that a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued, not least because as the Home Secretary said, the current framework consists of a whole series of instruments that are fragmentary and repetitive. They hamper cross-border investigation at a time when the international dimension, particularly of serious organised crime, is of increasing importance.
There is a clear need for a comprehensive, legally binding single instrument to provide a definitive framework for cross-border investigations. That should not be conflated with the European prosecutor proposal, which we were firmly against. Perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that failure to opt into the current instrument would leave the UK with the existing unsatisfactory and fragmentary provision, thus putting us at a disadvantage in the fight against cross-border crime. In contrast, as she said, opting in will allow us to negotiate further safeguards. Does she agree that those should include greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should not that include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stage?
I agree with the Home Secretary that there should be a proportionality test, as with the European evidence warrant, which I believe the UK will no longer be obliged to implement if we sign up to the EIO. Can she confirm that that is the case?
The human rights organisation, Justice, has indeed urged the Government to opt into the instrument, but it has raised a number of concerns about the initial draft. What discussions have the Secretary of State or her Ministers had with that organisation, and does she agree with its analysis?
It is good to see that the Government have recognised that cross-border crime is a serious concern. The Home Secretary’s party opposed the European arrest warrant, principally, I believe, because it contained the word “European”. I am glad that she is not repeating that mistake, and in welcoming her statement, I hope that will rethink her approach on second generation biometric passports so that as with the EIO, British citizens are not left behind as security measures in the rest of the European Union become more effective.
Mrs May
I welcome the positive and constructive approach that the right hon. Gentleman has taken today. Sadly, we are about to go into recess, so he and I must find a means of meeting other than across the Dispatch Box in the coming weeks. He made a number of points and made a passing reference to the Stockholm programme. Of course, this Government did not support everything in that. We are treating each justice and home affairs issue on a case-by-case basis, so we will decide to opt in to some things, such as the EIO, and to opt out of others.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm the impact of a failure to opt in. Failure to opt in would indeed leave UK police and prosecutors in a very unfortunate position, because it would mean that they must rely on existing MLA agreements to obtain evidence from overseas. It is intended that forces from which evidence is requested will meet a timetable contained within the EIO. I suspect that because of that, the practical reality of opting out is that UK requests would go to the bottom of the pile. The figures are stark—70% to 75% of our MLA requests are with other EU member states—so failure to opt in would have a significant impact.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the European evidence warrant. The directive makes it clear that the EEW will be repealed and replaced by the EIO. He also mentioned the European arrest warrant. Of course, it is important that people should not get mixed up between the EIO and the EAW. We took a view different from that of the previous Government on the EAW when they signed up to it, but our review of extradition will include a review of the EAW.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about safeguards. As I said in my statement, it will be necessary in the case of certain requests—for example, for the search of premises —to have the safeguard of proper consideration, because a warrant will be required, as is the normal course of events if the UK police choose to search premises.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am deeply concerned that the EIO has not been considered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was formally set up last night, and nor have many other important matters. The legal basis is qualified majority voting, co-decision and the European Court of Justice under the Lisbon treaty. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the EIO applies to all investigative measures, and that it gives undue rights to police officers from other European countries to order our police to gather sensitive personal information —and, furthermore, DNA and banking records—in relation to non-criminal matters, and from those who are not even suspects? The grounds for refusing an EIO request are totally inadequate, and I am sure that the ESC will demand a debate and call evidence, but regrettably, it cannot do so until 8 September, because it has not been called to sit until then.
Mrs May
I must tell my hon. Friend that decisions on when the ESC meets are rather more a matter for him—as I understand it, he is the Chair of that Committee—than for me. However, I share some of his concern. As he and other Members of the House will know, I have written a pamphlet and proposed a 10-point plan on how Parliament can have more of an opportunity to have a say on, and to debate, decisions on European matters.
The instrument came before the Government on 29 April with a three-month deadline for decision. Of course, that period was partly taken up by the election, and the ESC was formed only last night, as my hon. Friend said. In the normal course of events in Parliament, the ESC could suggest the matter for debate. On that point, it is certainly my hope that when the Government propose to opt in on a major JHA issue, Parliament can consider it. However, I hesitate to give more of a guarantee than that, because what happens in Parliament is a matter for the business managers rather than for me. On the powers that my hon. Friend claims the EIO gives to foreign police forces and others, I must tell him that I think he is wrong.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the new-found affection between the Front Benchers, and take that one stage further by agreeing with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for the first time on a European issue? It is really important for Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise this decision. We have just had a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee. The Police Minister gave evidence about police resources, but we could not question him on the EIO, because the Home Secretary was due to make this statement. This is a serious matter that requires scrutiny by the ESC or the Home Affairs Committee.
The Home Secretary made a statement to the House that the EIO will not have an effect on police resources, and the Police Minister, in his excellent evidence to the Committee, talked about the need to preserve police resources, but a request from one of our European partners will result in more police time being spent. That must be the case, because they would not make such a request otherwise.
Mrs May
I agree that it would be of benefit for Parliament to scrutinise and debate many such European matters more than has happened in the past. However, given that we are up against a deadline and going into recess, it would have been very easy for me simply to have made a written ministerial statement. Instead, I chose to come to make an oral statement so that I could answer questions on the EIO.
On police resources, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we intend and hope to introduce a proportionality test in the negotiations, which is important. However, the EIO is not some new arrangement that will suddenly require extra police resources. Rather, it codifies and simplifies processes that already exist. To the extent that it reduces bureaucracy and simplifies those processes, I hope that it will be of extra benefit to our police.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many of us were elected on a programme of no more powers whatever passing to the European Union. Given that the Home Secretary promised us that no sovereignty would be transferred by the EIO, will she reassure us of that by putting into the draft proposal a simple clause that says that Britain can withdraw from the arrangement at any time if it proves to be not as advertised? If we have that clause, we are sovereign; if we do not have it, we are not sovereign. [Interruption.]
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for that sedentary intervention.
I did make that statement on sovereignty in relation to the EIO. We are opting in to the draft directive, over which there will be negotiations in the coming months. However, I said what I said because the order and the directive are not about sovereignty moving to Europe, but about making a practical step of co-operation to ensure that it will be easier for us not only to fight crime, but crucially, to ensure that justice is done.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am disappointed but not surprised by the Government’s decision to opt in to the EIO. I was a Home Office Minister some years ago, and even then officials tried to push all kinds of things, by which more power was taken away from this country. Following the Secretary of State’s previous answer, is she saying—let us let the public know the truth—that once we opt in, no matter how much we find that it is not working in our interest or that it is costing huge amounts of money, there is absolutely nothing we can do?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which shows not only that matters European divide different parties, but that people within the same party take different attitudes. She assumes that opting in to the order will mean extra costs and extra burdens for UK police, but I repeat what I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): we are talking about codifying arrangements that already exist. We are not suddenly being asked to sign up to something new that has just been plucked off the shelf. The suggestion is for practical co-operation that codifies and simplifies arrangements that already exist and that benefit police forces here in the UK.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the statement. It is right that we should opt in to orders that slash bureaucracy, help us fight crime and do not infringe our sovereignty. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important for her to work not just with her counterparts, but with Members of the European Parliament, to ensure that we strengthen the privacy and human rights safeguards in this order?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I hope that we can all work with MEPs to ensure that the directive that we end up with as a result of the negotiations in the coming months does what he suggests—slashes bureaucracy and makes it simpler for our prosecutors and police to ensure that justice is done. In doing that, we are all of conscious of the need to protect civil liberties.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals that she has made today—which are welcome, and represent a move away from Europhobia—include provisions, in articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Council decision, for intervention on banking transactions? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) implied, that is important in order to stop international organised crime.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the European investigation order will be a help to UK police forces and others across the European Union in tackling what we all agreed only yesterday is an important issue that should be given a greater focus—serious organised crime.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend, when she deals with the detail of these proposals, to ensure that these powers will apply only to common criminality between one country and another? For example, France has just banned the wearing of the burqa, which is a very un-British thing to do. Can she assure the House that if someone in this country used our freedom of speech to criticise that move, the French authorities would not be able to come here and arrest that person?
Mrs May
I think that my hon. Friend refers to the issue of dual criminality between member states, which is already provided for in relation to certain measures in the directive, especially coercive measures that might be taken as a result of the European investigation order. I can assure him that the issue of dual criminality is very much on our minds.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I warmly thank the Home Secretary for adopting this sensible, pragmatic and pro-European policy? I look forward to sending her a membership form for the European Movement. One of the problems that many UK police forces have had is tracking down child pornography and paedophile rings across Europe. Can she confirm that these proposals will go some way to helping police forces track down those people?
Mrs May
Now I am really worried!
Detection of various crimes, and the tracking down of the perpetrators, relies on cross-border co-operation. The point of the EIO is that it will assist such co-operation and, crucially, it will enable evidence to be gathered in a timely fashion. We already have examples— not in the sort of cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in drug trafficking—in which the evidence has arrived only after the end of the trial.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House—it is much appreciated. Does she share the concerns of some Back Benchers that during proceedings on the Lisbon treaty—when we were in opposition—loss of sovereignty was often described as just a “practical measure”? That phrase crept into her statement, too, and I would be grateful for reassurance that that is not the case.
Mrs May
I am trying not to make too much of a habit of making statements in the House—although there have been a few Home Office statements recently. I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern about the use of that terminology. I have looked into this issue and it is indeed a very practical measure. It will simplify, codify and put some time limits on processes that already exist. The MLA agreements are already in existence and are followed up by police forces here requesting evidence from overseas and by police forces overseas requesting evidence from the UK. These proposals will make it much easier to undertake that process in a timely fashion so that the evidence is available for both prosecutors and defendants in their trials.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the bravery that she has shown in taking such a different stance from that of so many members of her party? There are clearly criminals who exploit loopholes across borders, so would she be able to find a way to report to Parliament periodically on any advantages or gains that flow from this collaboration?
Mrs May
Having had my statement welcomed both by the shadow Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and now being described as “brave” by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I am not sure about this.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with some examples of the existing arrangements working, as well as examples of the problems caused for prosecutors and police by the lack of a timetable such as the one that will be introduced by the EIO.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s statement eloquently set out the reasons to welcome this process. However, the words “opt in” and “European directive” send shivers down many backbones in my constituency. Only today I heard from a constituent about the 256 European arrest warrants referred for mediation last year, presumably at a cost of untold millions to European taxpayers. Can the Home Secretary assure us that she and her team will scrutinise the detail of this directive to ensure that it is operationally more effective than the European arrest warrant system?
Mrs May
I can indeed assure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at the detail of this. The intention is to make it easier for prosecutors and police—and the defence—to obtain the evidence necessary for trials. She mentions the European arrest warrant, but as I said earlier, the EIO is entirely separate.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The problem with the argument that this is simply a simplification of existing arrangements is that that argument was put forward by Labour Ministers when they were pursuing the Lisbon treaty. That is why many of us are concerned about this and will continue to believe, as we said in opposition, that it demonstrates a relish for surveillance and a disdain for civil liberties. What impact will this order have on our DNA and fingerprint databases? Will forces from Europe be able to access those databases, and if so, what will happen if the person whose DNA they have accessed proves to be innocent? We would wipe that database after a period of time, but what would be our relationship with our partners in Europe?
Mrs May
I can, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend on his second point. Under the data protection arrangements in the European Union, DNA samples could be held by another member state only for the same time as they can be held here in the UK. That opens up another argument about why the Government intend to change the arrangements for the DNA database and do not want to hold the DNA of innocent people for significant periods, as the Labour Government did.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the proportionality test that will be applied, but who will write the rules of that test? Will it be by negotiation among EU countries or will it be the UK Government? And who will adjudicate that?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
As the final text will be determined by qualified majority vote, how may we be certain that we will not cede powers to Europe? Does the Home Secretary recall the words of a great and noble lady who, when Europe was trying to snatch powers, once said from that very Dispatch box, “No, no, no”? Is not that a much preferable way in which to approach a further European grab?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
“No, no, no” is the answer.
Mrs May
I am tempted, but I will avoid falling into that trap.
In the coming months we will be negotiating the final text of the directive with other member states. The early indications, from discussions with other member states, are that our concerns about the parts of the directive where we think that the drafting is not perfect, and more can be done, are shared by other member states, which is why we are confident we can arrive at a text that meets all the requirements that we want to set out. But is my hon. Friend really saying that he wants us to hamper the efforts of our police to bring people to justice and fight crime? I sincerely hope not. This measure will help the police to ensure that justice is done and crime beaten.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to the House, and I have been working hard to try to understand the Government’s position on this matter. However, I did not understand fully, from her statement, whether European authorities will not be able to order an investigation. Surely, the EIO does what it says on the tin, and allows European prosecutors and police to order an investigation here.
Mrs May
I will try to explain it to my hon. Friend. We already have agreements—the mutual legal assistance agreements—that enable the police force in the UK to ask other police forces in European member states to gain evidence that will be of use and benefit in taking cases to court and in providing evidence. There is also a reciprocal arrangement for other member states to ask our UK police forces to undertake similar evidence gathering. The EIO will simply put that on a timetable and simplify the processes. Currently a number of instruments can be used, but they are complex and confusing to those who use them. The EIO will simplify them into a single instrument and put a timetable on the process, which is why it will be of benefit to the police and prosecutors.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree with me, and with the police, that the directive will serve to speed up complex investigations, and should therefore help to keep criminals off the streets? Does she also agree that to do so would benefit British society as well as European society?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In response, I would simply cite a case of drugs trafficking that was drawn to my attention in which the failure to execute an MLA request resulted in a misleading picture being presented to the jury of the strength of the prosecution case. As a result, evidence that might have exculpated the UK defendant was not available in time for the trial. That case alone explains why we want to sign up to the EIO.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House to make this statement? It is no fault of her own, but nevertheless deeply unfortunate, that neither the European Scrutiny Committee nor the House of Commons has had the opportunity to consider this document. I urge her, when she comes to consider the detail of this proposal and future proposals of the same nature—which I believe may well appear—to be on her guard against the undoubted attempts of certain quarters in the European Union to build a common European judicial and legal system, and to use any means to hand as a building block towards that purpose. Will she be on her guard against that? In those circumstances, I believe that she would indeed be capable of saying, “No, no, no.”
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be on my guard, as will other members of the Government. We have made it clear that we are considering on a case-by-case basis all issues arising under the justice and home affairs remit of the EU. As I have said to the House, I believe that in this particular case it is in the national interest to opt in, but on other occasions we will opt out. So we take the issue that he raised very seriously.
Control Orders
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the information given in the statement entitled Control Order Powers (11 March 2010-10 June 2010) and laid before Parliament on 21 June 2010.
The statement reports that 10 of the 12 individuals subject to a control order as of 10 June 2010 were British citizens. The correct figure was that nine of the 12 individuals subject to a control order were British citizens.
Licensing Consultation
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On Wednesday 28 July the Home Office will be publishing a public consultation on proposals to overhaul the Licensing Act.
In the coalition agreement, the Government set out a clear programme of reform around alcohol licensing to tackle the crime and antisocial behaviour that is too often associated with binge drinking in the night-time economy. In particular, the Government set out the following commitments which are covered in this consultation.
We will overhaul the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, any premises that are causing problems.
We will allow councils and the police to shut down permanently any shop or bar found to be persistently selling alcohol to children.
We will double the maximum fine for under-age alcohol sales to £20,000.
We will permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing.
We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.
While we recognise the important role which pubs can play as part of the fabric of neighbourhoods and communities, the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2005 has not brought with it a vibrant “café culture”. Too often on a Friday and Saturday night, the police and local A&E departments bear the brunt of some of the worst excesses of binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We are determined to change this, and will be proposing to introduce more flexibility into the current licensing regime to allow local authorities and the police to clamp down on alcohol-related crime and disorder hot spots within local night-time economies.
The consultation document will be available on the Home Office website and printed copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
Policing in the 21st Century
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about a consultation paper that I am publishing today. Entitled “Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and the people”, it sets out the most radical reforms to policing in at least 50 years.
For this Government, police reform is a priority, not just because we inherited the worst public finances of any major economy, but because for too long the police have become disconnected from the communities that they serve, been bogged down by bureaucracy and answered to distant politicians instead of to the people. Crime remains too high, too many families and communities suffer from antisocial behaviour and barely half the public are confident that important local issues are dealt with. Meanwhile, the challenges that we face have changed. Terrorism, the growth in serious and organised crime and cybercrime all require new approaches that cross not just police force boundaries, but international borders.
First, we will transfer power back to the people. We will introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners by 2012. The commissioners will set the police budget, determine police force priorities and have the power to hire and, where necessary, fire their chief constable. To help the public hold their local police to account, we will publish local crime data and mandate local beat meetings so that people can challenge the performance of their neighbourhood policing teams.
Secondly, we will return professional responsibility to police officers. Front-line staff will no longer be form writers; they will be crime fighters, freed from bureaucracy and central guidance and trusted to get on with their jobs. We have scrapped the policing pledge. We have got rid of the confidence target. We will restore police discretion over charging decisions for particular offences. We will limit the reporting requirements for “stop and search” and we will scrap the “stop” form in its entirety.
Thirdly, we will shift the focus of Government. As the Home Affairs Committee noted during the previous Parliament, the previous Government tried to micro-manage local policing but failed to support forces effectively on national issues, so we will build on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency to create a more powerful national crime agency, which will tackle organised crime and protect our borders. We will phase out the National Policing Improvement Agency and scrap Labour’s plans for a statutory police senior appointments panel. We will discuss with the Association of Chief Police Officers the way forward in its role as a professional leadership body.
Fourthly, we will make the police more efficient at force, regional and national levels so that front-line local policing can be sustained. To this end, we are already consulting separately on police procurement regulations to get better value for taxpayers’ money.
Fifthly, we will unleash the power of community pride and civic responsibility, so that people can come together to cut crime. We will therefore look for a cost-effective way to establish 101 as a single police non-emergency number so that it is easier to report crime and antisocial behaviour. We will also do more to encourage active citizens to become special constables, community crime fighters and members of neighbourhood watch groups.
There is nothing inevitable about crime. That is why we are determined to press ahead with these reforms, which demonstrate our determination to undo the damage of the Labour years, put the people back in charge, and rid our communities of crime, antisocial behaviour and disorder. I commend the statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The statement should be entitled, “Policing in the 21st Century: How to make the job harder”. As usual, the Home Secretary trots out her infantile drivel about the last Labour Government, probably written by some pimply nerd foisted on her office by No. 10.
The Home Secretary said that she aims to undo the damage of the Labour years. That damage was recorded in the Home Office’s statistics on 15 July. Here it is: overall crime is down by 50%, violent crime is down by 50%, property crime is down by 55%, the murder rate is at its lowest level since at any time over the past 20 years, and the chance of being a victim of crime is at its lowest level since records began in 1981—21.5%, down from its peak of 40% under the Conservatives. That is the damage that she is seeking to undo—the kind of damage that any Government would be proud of.
The Home Secretary is about to have her budget cut by at least 25%.
Alan Johnson
It was our structural upheaval, I agree completely, but that is what occurs with any reorganisation. To put people through another structural upheaval four years later is simply madness.
In 2006, SOCA was wrongly described as replicating the FBI, and reports over the weekend gave the same description. Does the Home Secretary think it is accurate? She will be aware of Sir Paul Stephenson’s John Harris memorial lecture recently, which rejected the FBI option. Sir Paul set out a model built upon SOCA, not upon replacing it, and his national federated model has much to commend it. Why is the Home Secretary not pursuing that alternative?
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre does fantastic work. To build upon that work, we were moving it away from SOCA to be a non-departmental public body. Will the Home Secretary continue that process, and if not, why not?
Will the dedicated border force replace the UK Border Agency, and how many jobs will be lost as a result of these initiatives in SOCA, the UKBA, the National Policing Improvement Agency and elsewhere?
We have yet to hear a word from this Government about how they plan to cut crime. All we have heard is how they will cut officer numbers, prison places and police powers. Today, the Home Secretary has managed to reannounce at least three decisions that we had already taken in government. She says that she will mandate beat meetings to challenge the performance of neighbourhood policing teams, having scrapped the policing pledge drawn up by chief constables themselves to provide exactly that mandate.
The Home Secretary inherited the Department when crime had fallen substantially, public confidence in the police had never been higher and public concern about antisocial behaviour had never been lower. She says she is pursuing bold policies; in fact she is pursuing bad policies. I was pleased to see the Government’s U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants; elected commissioners need to go the same way.
Mrs May
I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that I find his complacent attitude in relation to what has happened over recent years rather surprising. As far we are concerned, we do need to fight and cut crime, but our streets can never be too safe and we will not be complacent about the antisocial behaviour and crime that still blight the lives of too many people in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the damage that is being done, but I will tell him when damage is done to policing in this country. It is when, as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported last week, at any one point an average of only 11% of police officers are out on our streets. It is when the average police constable is spending only 14% of their time on the streets and 22% in filling forms. The Labour Government did that damage over 13 years.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the DNA database. It is extraordinary that he is still willing to defend a Government who wanted to put innocent people’s DNA on the database, but were not willing to ensure that they had the DNA of all the people in prison on that database.
The right hon. Gentleman asks who supports the decision to have directly elected commissioners and elected representatives of the people. He will find some support from the following quote:
“we will legislate to strengthen the democratic link with the public by introducing local, directly elected crime and policing representatives.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2008; Vol. 479, c.435.]
Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Home Secretary, the right honourable Jacqui Smith.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the need to publish figures. Of course, we will in due course publish figures in relation to the police commissioners as well as the business case for the national crime agency. He mentioned its role and the need for it. Only two weeks ago in the Police Foundation lecture, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, raised the need for us to strengthen the tasking and co-ordination of response to serious organised crime. That is what the national crime agency will do. It will also deliver our commitment for a border police force and strengthen our ability to protect our borders.
On the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about cuts in budgets, I simply refer him to two things. First, he seems to have forgotten that, in the words of the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, “There is no money left.” Secondly, it would be helpful for the House to know that yesterday, on Sky News, the shadow Home Secretary confirmed that, in a Labour Government, he would have cut police budgets.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the checks and balances that apply to elected police commissioners must be strong enough to stop populist politicians turning policing into their personal fiefdoms?
Mrs May
I think that everybody in politics aims to represent the people and their views. The point of directly elected commissioners is to replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that checks and balances need to be in place. That is why we will introduce the police and crime panels, drawn from local authority representatives and independent members, with powers to look at the commissioner of police’s plans in their area and to raise public concerns if they wish to do that.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I will leave aside the fact that the Government came to power promising to stop constant reorganisations but have done nothing but reorganise. Will the Home Secretary confirm that SOCA in its current guise is being abolished and that the intelligence function, which is crucial to dealing with, for example, the cybercrime and e-crime that she mentioned, will go with it? Does she therefore propose to enhance the role of the excellent police e-crime unit in the Met, or to transfer the powers to that amorphous body, the NCA?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman’s assumption that SOCA’s intelligence-gathering capability will be abolished is completely wrong. We intend to build on and harness the intelligence-gathering expertise that has been built up in SOCA in the past few years as part of the serious organised crime command in the national crime agency.
Given that, in November 2003, the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals included changing police authorities so that they would be wholly or partially directly elected rather than appointed, I am sorry that he has not supported our proposal for directly elected commissioners.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Given that the Home Affairs Committee found that SOCA managed to seize only £1 from organised crime gangs for every £15 of its budget, will the Home Secretary reassure us that her proposals for the national crime agency will be more effective in cutting not only crime, but waste?
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will know that effective policing in this country is absolutely dependent on good intelligence at every level. How will she ensure that the relationships between local authorities and the police, which are essential not only for neighbourhood policing, but for that golden thread of intelligence that goes all the way through to tackling terrorism, are maintained under her proposals?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and for raising the point about the golden thread that runs through policing. It is absolutely essential that we retain that golden thread from local neighbourhood policing all the way through to the work done at national level to fight serious organised crime, terrorism and so on. However, one of the points of introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners is to ensure that someone in each force has a direct responsibility to the people, which will ensure that they represent the needs of the people in local policing.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Home Secretary has done what the Opposition failed to do—she has stood up to the vested interests and put the police under democratic control. Since she does not envisage allowing directly elected individuals to direct particular investigations, will she assure the House that she will not sign up to a European investigation order that would allow political appointees in other member states to do precisely that?
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for clarifying that the Government intend not to abolish SOCA, but rather to build on it. How will she ensure that efforts are made locally and regionally, whether by elected commissioners or chief constables, to focus on serious organised crime, so that the national agency can perform appropriately and for the benefit of the whole country?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that important point. Of course, individual police forces will still have a responsibility to deal with serious organised crime, but we need to strengthen that national co-ordination and tasking in relation to such crime, which is why we are bringing the serious organised crime command into the national crime agency. However, we are also looking at imposing strong duties of collaboration among police forces to ensure that, when collaboration across force boundaries is necessary to deal with issues such as serious organised crime, that does indeed take place.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary give an assurance to the House and police forces in England and Wales that they need not fear that they will be forced into amalgamations because of the changes, and that we are not going to resurrect the Labour party’s proposals from its last term in power?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and for enabling me to put absolutely clearly on the record that this Government will not try to impose mergers on police forces. If police forces voluntarily wish to merge and come forward not only with a strong business case, but with clear indications that such a merger is supported by the local communities, we will of course look at that, but we will not, unlike the previous Government, try to impose mergers on forces.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome a number of the Home Secretary’s proposals today that are in keeping with recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year? I was going to say that she nicked the name of our last report for her White Paper, but I will be generous and say that she borrowed it. She is right about SOCA, and clearly, £79 million on National Policing Improvement Agency consultants is far too much, but will she give the House an assurance that, whatever the reorganisation entails, front-line policing will not be affected; that the number of officers on the front line will remain the same; that our fight against terrorism will be as strong as it has been over the past few years; and that we will not give in to the serious organised crime gangs?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, for the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done under his chairmanship and for the issues that it has identified, to which I referred in my statement. I can confirm to him—and it is clear in the document—that our work on counter-terrorism is a good example of forces coming together and working together, and we have no plans to change the arrangements that are in place. In relation to front-line policing, this Government want to strengthen it. We want to slash the bureaucracy and get the police where they should be—out on the streets.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
In setting up the new national crime agency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it does not make the same mistakes as its predecessor bodies in setting artificial targets for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which have often led to inappropriate and wasteful proceedings?
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether she has had any independent assessment made of the likely impact of these proposals on crime rates?
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that for elected commissioners to work in the court of public opinion they will have to have real teeth? I am pleased to hear that they will have the powers to hire and fire. Will she confirm that those powers will not be watered down in the legislation?
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware that while concern about the impact of crime will always be great among our constituents, in my constituency the police—led by Inspector Damian O’Reilly and his colleagues—have great achievements in reducing crime levels and improving detection rates in several categories? Does she accept that, if those achievements—achieved with the support of the Labour Government and Manchester Labour council—deteriorate in any way, it will be her cuts and her reorganisation that will be held responsible?
Mrs May
I of course commend the work that is being done on the ground by individual police officers, such as those whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. This Government want to strengthen the fight against crime. He returns—as did the shadow Home Secretary—to the issue of cuts. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported last week that it thinks that it will be possible to find 12% budget cuts in the police force without affecting front-line policing. The reason that we are having to look at the sort of spending cuts across Government that we are—[Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers may groan, but they know that it is their fault: it is the legacy of the last Labour Government.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that having directly elected police commissioners will help to improve the public’s trust and confidence in our police force by ensuring that the police listen to local people?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. We need to restore that confidence and the link between the police and the public—the link that has sadly been damaged over the years by the increased bureaucracy and imposition from the centre under the last Labour Government. He is right that our proposals will increase the public’s confidence.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
There will be concerns about the possible disruption of activities against organised crime as a result of the changeover from SOCA to the national crime agency. What contact has the Home Secretary had with regional assemblies across the UK and can she give an assurance that the formation of the new agency will not mean a downgrading of the fight against crime in regions such as Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
We certainly wish to ensure that the fight against crime is in no way downgraded; indeed, the whole purpose of our proposals is to help to strengthen the fight against crime across the UK, as I have said in answer to a number of questions. The directly elected police commissioners will relate to England and Wales, and both the Minister for Police and I have had discussions with the Welsh Assembly.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s excellent statement, may I urge her to consider extending control to the Crown Prosecution Service? We saw in the earlier statement the difficulties that we have with the uniquely British system of having a prosecution organisation that is wholly independent of accountability.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important point. As their name suggests, the police and crime commissioners will have a responsibility that goes wider than simply the police force. We are looking at how they can work with, for example, community safety partnerships in local areas. However, we also envisage looking at the possibility of extending the remit of police and crime commissioners further in the criminal justice system. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police is looking at that with both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I press the Home Secretary for an answer on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has established itself as a world leader in protecting children and finding perpetrators? All the evidence points to the need for an independent organisation focused on child protection. Why does she want to shoehorn CEOP into the national crime agency?
Mrs May
There is no suggestion of shoehorning anything. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that CEOP has built up a significant reputation through the important work that it has done. I pay tribute to CEOP and Jim Gamble for everything that they have done in that area. However, we are not talking about shoehorning it into anything. What we are talking about is greater co-ordination across a range of activities under the national crime agency, and CEOP will be part of that.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on her commitment to looking for a cost-effective way of re-establishing the single non-emergency number, 101? May I also urge her to undertake to build on the pilots already established in Hampshire and elsewhere, and roll out the number nationwide as quickly as possible, so that the general public can have a quick and easy way to report crime and antisocial behaviour, and an alternative to the overloaded 999 number?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. Let me take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to him for the work that he did at an early stage of the introduction of the 101 number pilots. The 101 number is an important development, and we will do all that we can to ensure that we introduce it cost-effectively.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Can the Home Secretary explain how having elected police commissioners will genuinely be a step forward for democracy when it is likely to lead to senior police officers being chosen not for their ability to do the job, but because of their party allegiance?
Mrs May
As the hon. Lady will know, the question of party allegiance does not arise in relation to chief constables, because members of the police force are not able to be members of political parties. We are absolutely clear that chief constables will retain their operational independence. It is important that they and the police in this country are able to operate without fear or favour, and we will maintain that. However, according to a Cabinet Office survey conducted under the last Labour Government, at the moment, only 7% of people in this country know that if they have a problem with the police, they can go to their police authority. We will clearly be ensuring democratic accountability for the police at local level through the introduction of police commissioners, although I am sorry that the hon. Lady has such a jaundiced view of the views of the British people.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
As a special constable who served in the Cheshire constabulary, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement about increasing the number of special constables. Does she agree that these unpaid volunteers are an excellent and cost-effective way to fight crime?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of special constables. I thank him for what he did as a special constable and place on record the thanks of the whole House for the work that all special constables do in helping the fight against crime. They play an important role, and we intend to encourage more people to take it on.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Many of the improvements that the Home Secretary has talked about are already happening on the ground in Stoke-on-Trent, thanks to people such as Inspector Sharrard-Williams. Recently, however, the House might have seen a man who runs the British National party claiming that he has 1 million followers—that is, 1 million people voting BNP—in the UK. What happens when the BNP stands for one of these commissioner posts, as will happen, and gets it?
Mrs May
This is something that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised on a number of occasions, and I will give him two answers. If he looks at the voting record so far, he will see that the British National party has never managed to get more than 15% of the vote in an election. But let us set that to one side; I actually believe in trusting the people of this country.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement as a way of empowering communities and making our streets safe. With regard to unnecessary bureaucracy, what steps are being taken to review the work of the NPIA, which costs millions and achieves nothing, according to some senior police officers?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Neither the Home Secretary nor I would want to comment on ongoing investigations, but I hope she will agree that the Northumbria police force recently faced a huge and complex challenge and that it responded to it admirably, with the support of police forces across the north. Will she explain to me and my constituents how this top-down reorganisation, combined with cuts in central and local funding, will enable the Northumbria police force to rise to such challenges in the future?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that I would not want to comment on the ongoing investigations into the recent work of Northumbria police in relation to Raoul Moat. I would say, however, that that was a good example of how a police force can bring in resources from elsewhere. It brought in resources from across the country, including from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Met and other local forces, in response to a very difficult situation involving a callous murderer, Raoul Moat. I would say to the hon. Lady that we are not imposing a top-down reorganisation; we are talking about restoring democratic accountability, which will enable the link between the police and the public to be restored.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
What effect does my right hon. Friend expect the national crime agency’s border police force to have on the number of illegal immigrants, which the previous Government estimated to be around 700,000?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It has been a long-standing concern of ours that we need to strengthen our border protection through the introduction of a border police force. We will do that within the national crime agency, which will enable the work of border police force, bringing together the work of the UK Border Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other agencies, to link in with the work of the serious organised crime command. That will not only strengthen our ability to protect our borders in the way that she suggests, but will enable us to protect this country against serious organised crime.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
What is the point of the Home Secretary giving a paean to police community support officers when she is overseeing a programme of cuts that has resulted in Durham constabulary announcing last week that it would have to remove 200 such officers?
Mrs May
I believe neighbourhood policing to be an important part of our police landscape. The work that can be done at local level by warranted officers and PCSOs forms an important part of the golden thread that runs from neighbourhood policing through to national issues. The hon. Lady mentioned cuts in police budgets. The in-year cut in police budgets this year is less than 1.5% across the country, and we all know why. This will probably be a cause for groans from Labour Members because they know what the answer is: those budgets have been made necessary by the legacy of economic mismanagement by the previous Labour Government.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Last week, Staffordshire police authority announced the appointment of its first full-time chief executive, with a salary of £85,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Staffordshire would rather have more influence over policing priorities than see the appointment of another unelected, unaccountable and expensive bureaucrat?
Mrs May
The whole point of the structure that we are proposing is that, after May 2012, there will be directly elected police and crime commissioners who will set the budget and the strategic plan for the police, and ensure that the decisions being taken are in line with the interests of the people and with fighting crime.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Given the amount of sensitive information to which the elected commissioners will have access, will they undergo security clearance before standing for election? What would happen after the election if they were elected without the appropriate level of clearance?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware that the chief constable of Essex has said in a written statement that the opportunities presented by elected police commissioners include the potential for less cost, less bureaucracy and greater public clarity? Will she agree to meet the chief constable with me, and to support local people who believe in local democracy for local policing?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reporting to the House the comments of the chief constable of Essex, whom I would be delighted to meet. We have been meeting chief constables across England and Wales to discuss the proposals, but I would be happy to hear what he has been able to do to fight crime and reduce bureaucracy in Essex.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has not addressed the effect of police budget cuts on her ideas. Does she not agree that elected commissioners are already doomed to fail, as thousands of neighbourhood police and thousands more police community support officers, for instance in the Cleveland police force, are removed from the communities they have served so well?
Mrs May
No, I do not agree that that is the implication of what we are doing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to the shadow Home Secretary, who, when challenged during the general election campaign to guarantee that there would be no cuts to the number of police officers under a Labour Government, simply said that he could not make such a guarantee.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for making the statement now, because in past years such announcements were made during the recess when the House could not question a Minister. The UK Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield is closed and has been incorporated into SOCA, which is now being closed and will become the NCA. Are the Government still committed to combating human trafficking?
Mrs May
Yes, we are indeed still committed to combating human trafficking. Setting up the national crime agency, with not only the serious organised crime command but the border police force and increasing broader protection, will, I believe, enable our fight against trafficking to be even stronger.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary tell us how much directly elected police commissioners will cost?
Mrs May
I have already referred to that question, which was raised by the shadow Home Secretary. We will in due course publish figures about the cost of directly elected commissioners. As I have said elsewhere, the introduction of directly elected commissioners is not an attempt to make savings; it is a long-standing commitment, which we believe is necessary to reconnect policing and the public.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these commissioners will not have a new paid bureaucracy created around them? Instead, might they be assisted by an unpaid advisory board?
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Did the Tory party not claim to be the party of law and order in the past? Is the Home Secretary not embarrassed to be the first Tory Home Secretary to set out to undermine the police with the proposed cuts? Does she agree that gimmicks are no substitute for substance?
Mrs May
The police have been undermined by the way in which Whitehall has set them targets, and by having to look constantly to Whitehall in relation to what they do. Instead, they should respond to the needs of people in their local area. We are strengthening the ability of police to fight crime, slashing bureaucracy and enabling police officers to get out on to the streets, where the public want to see them.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the 101 phone number is an important tool in understanding real levels of crime, and that it is also effective in helping police officers to know where to tackle the problem areas in the community?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. The 101 phone number is important, and that is why we are considering introducing it nationally. The information that we will make available about crime at street level will also be important in helping people to tackle crime locally.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that there will have to be a reduction in the number of front-line police officers as a result of the additional cost of directly electing police commissioners?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a special constable serving the British Transport police.
Given that half of all crime is committed by 10% of criminals, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that one of the best ways of promoting policing in the 21st century would be to ensure that persistent and prolific offenders served their full time in jail?
Mrs May
I commend my hon. Friend for his work as a special constable with the British Transport police. The work that they do is often forgotten, but it is an important part of the fight against crime and the job of keeping people safe.
I think that what we need to do to protect people from crime is ensure that when offenders have served their time, we can reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Home Secretary embarrassed about the fact that she has not even had time to figure out the cost of the separate police commissioner apparatus? What on earth has she got against good old-fashioned democratic local government as the best way of holding the police to account?
Mrs May
I have absolutely no embarrassment in coming to the House and making it clear that what we will do is restore democratic accountability to the police through the direct election of commissioners. The hon. Gentleman speaks of local government. As a former councillor, I believe that local government is an important part of the strength of government in this country, but I also believe that most people do not know what their police authority is, or that they can consult it with a problem relating to their policing. Now they will have an opportunity to vote directly for the individual who will be their police commissioner.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on going for it and introducing directly elected commissioners. They have been very successful in other parts of the world, particularly the United States. However, has she thought about the situation that might arise if a directly elected commissioner had one policy and she had another, based on the national interest? How would that situation be resolved?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that prospect. One of the purposes of directly elected commissioners is to be responsive to local needs. Of course it will be necessary to ensure that the collaboration between police forces that I referred to earlier can be undertaken when necessary, and that will also involve ensuring that national policing issues are addressed properly. However, it is not the Home Secretary who should determine what happens in regard to local policing—which is what happened under the Labour Government—but the directly elected commissioners.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The cost of elections in Lancashire is expected to be at least £1 million. Given that the Home Secretary has just said that there is no money, can she tell us whether they will be paid for by the Treasury or by Lancashire taxpayers?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Now that her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has explained that crime fell under Labour because of a rise in living standards, by what measure does the Home Secretary estimate that crime will rise as a result of cuts in public services, the rise in VAT and rising unemployment? Will the direct election of commissioners mean higher living standards for anyone other than the commissioners themselves?
Mrs May
That was a slightly convoluted question, if I may say so. I believe that directly elected commissioners will ensure that the police forces in their areas are responsive to local needs rather than being responsive simply to the bureaucratic imposition from Whitehall, as they were under the Labour Government.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the Home Secretary’s response to her hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), who gave the example of directly elected commissioners in the United States, is it not the case that, far from crime falling there, the United States has vastly larger crime totals than we do and vastly overcrowded prisons? Is it not also the case that once elected, the directly elected police commissioner tends to spend the next three years campaigning for re-election rather than tackling crime? Is that really the model that the Home Secretary wishes to introduce to this country?
Mrs May
I neither accept nor recognise the picture the hon. Lady paints of what happens with directly elected commissioners in other parts of the world. Labour Members who are so against directly elected commissioners should ask themselves two questions. First, why then do they support the arrangements we have in London, where the Mayor is directly accountable? Secondly, why was it, therefore, that in 2008 the then Labour Home Secretary brought forward proposals for directly elected police representatives?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If the Home Secretary will not tell us how much this is going to cost or where the money is coming from, will she at least tell my constituents in Selly Oak that she is not planning to pinch it from their hard-pressed police budgets?
Mrs May
I have answered the question about—[Interruption.] No, I have made it clear that we will publish figures in due course. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all Departments are going through the spending review at the moment and the budgets and other figures will be revealed later this year.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Given that 80% of the Northern Ireland public are aware of their police authority and Policing Board, has the Home Secretary any plans to replicate the mechanisms adopted in respect of the Policing Board for holding a chief police officer to account, namely having elected, as well as appointed, officials on the board who have regular monthly public meetings holding the chief of police to account? Is that not a better way forward than directly electing commissioners?
Mrs May
We did, of course, look at the arrangements in Northern Ireland, but what we propose to introduce in England and Wales will include a directly elected commissioner and a police and crime panel, which will be drawn from local authority representatives and independent people who will be able to ask the commissioner of police to appear before them and explain what has been happening in their area.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The inevitable logic of what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon is that we should be electing not only police commissioners but the local chief prosecuting officer. Indeed, it seemed from what she was saying earlier that she was moving in that direction. Surely the last thing people want in any of our constituencies is more party political interference in the policing of this country.
Mrs May
We are not talking about party political interference in policing. The picture the hon. Gentleman has painted does not accurately portray what I was saying earlier about directly elected commissioners. The directly elected commissioners will be called police and crime commissioners and they will have a wider role than simply looking at what is happening in relation to their police force; they will be looking at crime more generally and working with community safety partners. We are, however, absolutely clear that the operational independence of the police will remain.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
As I am the final questioner, may I take the opportunity to ask two central questions? First, how much will these initiatives cost and, secondly, by how much will they cut crime?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members, including the Home Secretary whose pithiness enabled more than 40 colleagues to ask questions on the statement; that was very welcome.
Hillsborough Independent Panel
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I want to place on record the Government’s support for the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel under the chairmanship of the Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool.
What happened at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 was a tragedy of national and international significance. The Government recognise that despite the various examinations of the circumstances which have taken place over the years, important questions remain to be resolved. With this in mind, the Hillsborough Independent Panel has been created to oversee the disclosure of the records relating to Hillsborough; to report on how the disclosed material adds to public understanding of the tragedy and its aftermath, and to make recommendations for a permanent archive.
The panel has the Government’s full support in achieving maximum possible disclosure of the records, initially to the Hillsborough families and then publicly. No changes are to be made either to the panel’s terms of reference or to its membership, which both remain as previously published.
I am well aware of the significance of the Hillsborough disaster, which had a profound impact on Liverpool as well as people in Sheffield, Nottingham and beyond. My meetings with the Bishop of Liverpool have confirmed to me both the importance of the panel’s work and the diligence and professionalism with which it is carrying out its duty, and I am happy to confirm it will continue with our full support.
Terrorism Legislation (Lord Carlile Report)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed his report on the operation in 2009 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which will be laid before the House today. Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.
I am grateful to Lord Carlile for his detailed report and thank him for his continuing work in carrying out the role of independent reviewer for terrorism legislation so effectively.
I will carefully consider his views and recommendations. Given a number of Lord Carlile’s key recommendations relate to powers that are being considered in the review of counter-terrorism and security powers that I reported to the House on 13 July 2010, I intend to respond to his report after that review has been completed.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.
Our country has many years’ experience of dealing with terrorism. Five years after the appalling events of 7/7, the threat from Islamist terrorists is well known. The threat from dissident Irish republican terrorists has not gone away, and new threats will undoubtedly emerge in future.
Terrorism is not just another crime. Its purpose is political, its methods are barbaric and its effects can be devastating. For those reasons, dealing with terrorism and terrorist suspects cannot be treated in the same way as dealing with other crimes and other criminal suspects. The potential loss of life from terrorism means that the priority of the police and security agencies is to stop attacks happening in the first place. That often means that they have to intervene at a very early stage to prevent the terrorists’ plans from becoming too far advanced, which often means that there has been insufficient time to gather enough admissible evidence to charge the suspects. So, uniquely in terrorism cases, it is often after arrest that most of the evidential investigation takes place.
Furthermore, once arrests have been made the police can be presented with an enormous volume of information, which is exacerbated by three things: first, modern communications, because of the increasing and more sophisticated use of encryption; secondly, globalisation, because of the complexity of international terrorist networks and the need for co-operation in often difficult diplomatic circumstances; and, thirdly, the ambitions of the terrorists, because of the need for forensic examination of the hazardous and volatile materials that many wish to use as their weapons.
Unlike Ministers in the previous Government, I say that not to make the case for 28 days’, 42 days’ or 90 days’ detention before charge, but because I believe that it is important to remember during the debate the gravity of the threat that we face, and the difficulty of the job done by the police and the intelligence and security services.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Obviously, one understands that there is an important and serious job of investigation to be done. However, this country has a uniquely long period of pre-trial detention—far longer than that of any comparable country. I know that the Home Secretary has undertaken a review of that, so would it not be sensible to give a signal that we intend to reduce the length of pre-charge detention, by decreasing it to 14 days today rather than reaffirming the 28-day order? We reaffirmed the prevention of terrorism Acts throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Every time we said that the matter would be re-examined. Maybe this time, we should do something.
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman has some patience and listens to what I am saying, he will hear the signal that I want to give about 28 days. However, he will recognise that, by definition, the fact that I have moved that the order for the 28-day measure be continued for six months means that I am not suggesting that the detention period should change to 14 days today.
I have set out the nature of the threat, and it is important that we recognise its gravity in the debate, but it must be met by taking proportionate action, and the job must be done with proportionate powers. That is why, yesterday, I announced the inclusion of pre-charge detention in my review of counter-terrorism powers, along with control orders, stop-and-search powers, the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, deportations with assurances, and measures to deal with organisations promoting hatred or violence.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I consider the 28-day limit to be a temporary measure, and I want it brought to an end once I have completed my review. Since the power to detain for 28 days was passed by Parliament and came into force in July 2006, 11 people have been held for more than 14 days, eight were charged with terrorist-related offences, and four were found guilty. Of those, six people have been held for between 27 and 28 days, three were charged with terrorist-related offences, and two were found guilty. No suspect has been held for more than 14 days since July 2007. When one considers that in the 12 months ending in December 2009 28 terrorism-related trials were completed, with 93% convictions, including six life sentences, it is clear to me that the power to detain for up to 28 days is not needed routinely for the police to investigate, interrogate and charge terrorist suspects.
The possibility remains that in some extreme circumstances it might be necessary to detain some suspects beyond 14 days, but those circumstances remain rare and extreme, and we need to be sure that the powers are never abused. That is why we need to take time to consider pre-charge detention as part of the review of counter-terrorism powers. Therefore, in moving today’s motion, I am asking hon. Members not to support 28 days indefinitely, nor to support 28 days for 12 months, as was envisaged in the Terrorism Act 2006, but to support a renewal for six months while the counter-terrorism review considers how we can reduce the limit.
The draft order that I have laid before the House will come into force on 25 July and will expire on 24 January 2011. After that, it will be up to me as Home Secretary to come back to the House to ask for a further extension, to let the limit fall to 14 days, or to present new proposals that reduce the limit but introduce contingency arrangements in extreme circumstances.
The review of counter-terrorism powers will, as I said yesterday, be informed by the principles of the coalition Government. Those principles—shared principles—are based on a respect for our ancient civil liberties and individual freedom. There is nothing we take more seriously than our duty to protect the public, but in doing so we will not, as the previous Government did, forget to defend our way of life.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
In her reply to me yesterday, the Home Secretary said that her favoured time would be 14 days. We know that that is the view of the Liberals and the view that is coming out of the Home Office, so why waste time and expense if we already know the result? Why not get on with this today, and just go back to 14 days?
Mrs May
I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in my answer yesterday that 14 days represents my personal view, but I also said in answer to him and a number of hon. Members that I do not think it right to pre-empt the result of the review. As I indicated, one option from the review might be to return to the House with a proposal for a reduced period of pre-charge detention, but with the possibility of contingency arrangements for extreme circumstances, when it may be necessary to take detention beyond 14 days. We should wait to hear the options that come from the review. That is why I am suggesting that hon. Members today support an extension, albeit just for those six months.
I referred to the principles of the coalition Government and said that we would not forget to defend our civil liberties, but that we take the duty to protect the public more seriously than anything else. The need to get that balance right is why we have already introduced legislation to get rid of identity cards and announced interim restrictions on the use of stop-and-search powers under terrorism legislation, and why I included the controversial use of automatic number plate recognition cameras in the review of CCTV regulations. We will introduce a freedom Bill, adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database, restore rights to non-violent protest, end the storage of internet and e-mail records without good reason, and extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Freedom runs through the DNA of this coalition Government, and it will apply to our work on pre-charge detention as it will to everything else we do.
The country has not only a new Government, but a new Parliament. Having spoken to many new hon. Members as well as old, I know that this Parliament takes very seriously its role in protecting our freedoms. I therefore hope that we can today rise above the sort of arguments put forward by Ministers in the previous Parliament, and work out together how we can reduce the limit, subject to adequate safeguards and contingency plans. I extend that invitation to Opposition Front Benchers.
Yesterday, when I announced the review of counter-terrorism legislation, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), queried the need for further safeguards,
“given that 28-day detention has to be re-approved by Parliament each year”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 799.]
However, what sort of safeguard was that, given that the previous Government used to whip Labour MPs to reinstate it every year, come what may? Similarly, one source was quoted in a national newspaper this morning as saying:
“You either have complete security or complete civil liberties—you cannot have both.”
I am afraid that that sort of zero-sum mentality damaged individual freedom under the previous Government. It is time we moved beyond that thinking, so that we have a more mature approach that balances the need for national security with important civil liberties.
I am aware that in asking many hon. Friends and hon. Members to vote for this temporary six-month measure today, I am asking them to take a deep breath and vote for a measure that they do not very much like. But I can assure them that if they support this order, I will work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to find a solution that reduces the limit for pre-charge detention, but gives the police the powers they need to keep us all safe from those who would bring devastation to our country. I commend the order to the House.
Alan Johnson
I am not aware of that. In fact, the usual argument is that the common-law countries such as Australia, Canada and even the US do not have this system. Europe is the worst place for my hon. Friend to find his examples. Let me cite Norway, for instance. Good old, solid, Scandinavian, liberal Norway has provisions that allow people to be kept in custody—renewed by a High Court judge, who is involved in any detention beyond 14 days—for far longer than 28 days, or even 42 days. That was a helpful intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I think that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds succinctly summed up the two issues I mentioned, but there is one further aspect that we have to consider in deciding whether to renew this legislation. It was rightly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The issue is whether the very existence of 28-day detention leads to radicalisation in certain communities to the extent that it defeats the objective of reducing the terrorist threat. The Home Office community impact study published in March certainly found examples of UK Muslims having a strong negative perception of counter-terrorism legislation, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence on specific aspects, such as 28 days, to lead to any firm conclusions. I doubt whether anyone in this Chamber thinks that pre-charge detention of 28 rather than 14 days has of itself radicalised anyone to the extent that they would be prepared to engage in terrorist activity.
While I am dealing with this aspect, I hope the Home Secretary can refute the story in The Guardian this morning that she has decided to dismantle the Prevent strategy. She told my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) yesterday, as is recorded in column 802 of Hansard, that the strategy was being reviewed by the Home Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government. When I read the Home Office draft structural reform plan released yesterday, which is the source of the story in The Guardian, all I could find was the eminently sensible objective of keeping the “prevent” strand of counter-terrorism separate from the “integration” initiatives of DCLG. I would welcome clarification.
Mrs May
I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the clarification he seeks. As set out in the Home Office structural reform plan, we intend to look at the different strands of the Prevent strategy and to ensure that they are properly focused on the right aims. I believe that it is right and appropriate to separate out the part of the Prevent strategy that is about integration from the part about counter-terrorism. One problem with Prevent is that those two aspects have become intertwined in too many people’s thinking, which has, sadly, led to some of the Prevent work being rejected by those whom it was intended to help.
Alan Johnson
I am grateful for that clarification, and I completely agree with what the Home Secretary has said about Prevent.
As the Home Secretary said in her speech, the security threat is, if anything, greater today than it was a year ago. In the year since the last renewal, we have learned more, by means of Operation Overt, about the so-called liquid bomb plot, through the successful prosecution of those involved. We should remember that this involved the planned destruction of seven passenger planes all flying to North America, and is one case in which pre-charge detention beyond 14 days was necessary in respect of six people involved in that plot.
We also know now that Operation Pathway in Greater Manchester, which was a matter of speculation in the debate this time last year, is now understood to have been a serious and advanced terrorist plot. It was, thankfully, thwarted yet again by the security services. In the past year, two further organisations have been proscribed. The threat level, decided not by Ministers but by the experts in the security agencies, has been changed to “substantial” and then back to the second highest level, “severe”, which means that an attack is highly likely. As we meet today to make a decision based on the evidence over the coming year, that is the position in which we find ourselves.
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen who studied in the United Kingdom and was radicalised in Yemen, flew from Lagos via Holland with 80 grams of PETN explosive—which successfully circumvented aviation security—sewn into his underpants, in an attempt to blow up a passenger plane over Detroit. That demonstrated first the continuing ingenuity of our enemies, and secondly the international nature of the threat.
There has been one other important development over the year: the report of the all-party group of Privy Counsellors, under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot, on the crucial issue of intercept evidence. When I was Home Secretary, I briefed the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister separately in their previous roles. They fully understand—as, I know, does the Home Secretary—that the Privy Counsellors found that two of the nine principles that they themselves had established in order to ensure a practical way in which to meet our shared desire to use intercept as evidence were breached during the simulations that they conducted in the course of their work. They are doing further work to see whether they can find a way around the difficulties, but the issue is obviously integral to the whole question of pre-charge detention.
I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the response that she gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who asked why intercept evidence was not being considered as part of the review. She rightly said that it was better to consider the issue over time, but that, I believe, is an argument for spending longer on the review. I fail to see how such an important component of the argument about 28 days—rehearsed in every annual debate, and also integral to the consideration of control orders, which is also part of the review—can be separated from the overall review.
Finally, there is the important question of whether the power is being abused in the legal framework. Some Members argue that we should abandon this measure because it is not used very often, but I would be more concerned if it were used other than sparingly. As the Home Secretary rightly said, it is an exceptional measure, as Lord Carlile has pointed out, the need for it is rare, and the Crown Prosecution Service is well aware that no one should be detained for a moment longer than necessary. There is no evidence that the power has been abused, but Lord Carlile made an important recommendation in his review of Operation Pathway, proposing the granting of conditional bail by a judge for a period up to the 28th day following arrest, which would enable restrictions short of custody to be imposed while the inquiry continued. That strikes me as worthy of consideration, perhaps during the review.
In my view, the evidence is overwhelming. The statutory instrument should be approved today, and the Government should tread very carefully if the purpose of their review is to arrive at a conclusion consistent with the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to reduce the 28-day pre-charge detention period for terrorist suspects regardless of the dangers and the overwhelming evidence.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the forthcoming review of the 28-day limit, the measures that the Home Secretary has already taken on ID cards and stop-and-search powers and the wider review announced yesterday. We have an opportunity with the coalition and, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made clear, we have support across the House to restore our freedoms, while strengthening our security. This is not the zero-sum game depicted by countless, hapless Labour Home Secretaries, but it is crucial that we have an open and honest debate on these matters, and for that we need clear and accurate information.
I ask the Home Secretary to clarify a slight discrepancy between the answer that I received from her Department on 28 June and the quarterly bulletin of last November. My understanding is that only one person, not two, held for the full 28-day period has ever been convicted of a terrorism offence. I also ask her to provide in table form basic information that her department has previously refused to give. First, I should like to know, year by year, the number of people subjected to control orders, with a breakdown indicating the number of UK citizens and foreign nationals. That is relevant to our ability to deport terrorist suspects whom we cannot prosecute. Secondly, I should like information setting out the number of foreign nationals who have not been deported, broken down by category of reason—whether administrative, legal or based on human rights—so that we better understand why we have been failing to deport so many of them. That information is not impossible to collate, and it is vital for this issue and the wider debate on counter-terrorism.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend asks for a number of figures, but it is only fair to the House that I should pick up the first point that he makes, which relates to a parliamentary question that was answered in the name of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who has responsibility for crime and policing. Unfortunately, an inaccurate statistic was included in that answer, and he will correct that in the Hansard record very shortly. The figures on pre-charge detention are indeed as I indicated in my speech. Eleven individuals have been detained for 14 days or longer. Six individuals have been detained for 27 to 28 days, of whom three were subsequently charged and three released. Of the three who were charged, two were convicted and the case of one was not proceeded with. In the answer that my hon. Friend was given, reference was made to the number of individuals who had been arrested as a result of an operation by Greater Manchester police. It was indicated that two individuals were involved. In fact, only one of the 11 arrested as a result of that operation was involved.
Mr Raab
I thank the Home Secretary for that clarification. It is refreshing to get clarification from the Home Office so swiftly.
Twenty-eight days’ pre-charge detention was an emergency measure introduced on a temporary basis. We need a clear and convincing justification to retain it, because it undermines the ancient right of habeas corpus, which goes back to Magna Carta. We now know that, in relation to Operation Overt and the Heathrow plot of August 2006—the most challenging counter-terrorism investigation that we have ever faced as a nation—only five suspects were held for the maximum period of 28 days and only two were charged. Contrary to what Ministers said at the time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said, all the evidence relied upon was available well within 14 days. That Operation Overt was used by the last Government to justify proposals for 42 days’ detention was deeply irresponsible.
Since Operation Overt, only one person has been held for longer than 14 days—an isolated case of 19 days’ pre-charge detention. Last year, in 2009, no suspects were held in pre-charge detention for longer than 14 days and 70% were dealt with within 48 hours. So the raw facts in the debate are that, in four years, we have not needed longer than 19 days’ pre-charge detention, let alone 28 days. If we are judging the necessity of the order on the pressures that the police face during the pre-charge period, the evidence no longer supports a limit beyond 21 days at the very most.
In truth, those data are not the only relevant information. Briefings by the heads of MI5 in 2006 and 2007 showed a rise in the number of terrorist suspects being monitored by the authorities from 1,600 to 2,000. In 2008, the head of MI5 stated publicly that the volume of late-stage terrorist planning had fallen that year. I am not aware of any more recent assessments from the head of MI5 or the agency more generally. The House will recall that MI5 refused to support the last Government’s proposals for 42 days’ detention. Ministers stated at the time that it would be inappropriate for MI5 to give a view, yet Tony Blair publicly relied on MI5’s support for the increase in the limit in 2005. It cannot be in the interests of the intelligence agencies or the public that MI5 assessments are relied on by Ministers only when it is politically expedient or they want to publicise blood-curdling assessments of the terrorist threat. I ask the Home Secretary to put these arrangements on a more clear and stable footing. Either we should not have such briefings and public statements by MI5, or we should have regular, objective assessments of the domestic terrorist threat based on hard data that avoid any risk or perception of politicisation.
Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the order claims that all the specific grounds cited as reasons for increasing the maximum limit to 28 days in 2006 “remain relevant”. It is difficult to accept that sweeping assertion without further information. First, has the challenge of encrypted computers not been eased at all by the enactment in 2007 of a criminal offence of withholding encryption keys? Will the Home Secretary give us data on prosecution and conviction rates under that offence?
Secondly, will the Home Secretary inform the House of any case in the past two years in which the presence of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material has been a direct factor that has prolonged the period of pre-charge detention? Thirdly, will she explain the extent to which the new powers of post-charge questioning that were enacted in 2008 have alleviated the problem of having to intervene early in some terrorist investigations because of the threat to public safely? Alternatively, is it correct, as Liberty and several hon. Members have stated, that the relevant power was not even brought into force by the previous Government, despite all the hubris on that specific point?
The truth is that gaps remain in the UK counter-terrorism strategy, despite the excellent work and unstinting commitment of our police and intelligence agencies. If it is correct that the terrorist threat has remained constant and at its highest level, it must be worrying that the number of arrests leading to charge under terrorism legislation dropped by more than a fifth last year. The number of guilty pleas in terrorism investigations also fell by a third, while the number of convictions under terrorism legislation halved. Counter-intuitively, there was a conviction rate of 93% in terrorism cases, compared with rates of 31% for conspiracy to murder, 30% for wounding and 38% for rape, and that raises the more basic question of whether, as a matter of policy, we are taking a sufficiently robust approach to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in terrorism cases—I am talking about not a case-by-case approach, but the overarching strategy on prosecution.
We need a review of prosecutorial strategy as part of a broader shift away from the previous Government’s ineffective authoritarianism and towards an approach that deploys rather than sidesteps the British justice system. That means the greater use, when necessary, of the threshold test to prosecute when evidence is not available but is in the pipeline. It also means lifting the ban on intercept evidence, coupled with a more proactive use of plea bargaining, to increase the number of convictions, as well as the conviction rate, especially in cases involving wider conspiracies or joint criminal enterprise, as it is commonly known. Above all, however, it requires a change in the professional culture of this country’s intelligence and law enforcement authorities. That would be in line with the approach in other common law jurisdictions, most notably the US, where pre-charge detention is limited to two days. That is the way in which we can fight terror while defending our historic freedoms in this country.
I will support the order. I recognise that the Home Secretary needs time to examine these difficult issues further, but in the absence of convincing new evidence, I will be inclined to oppose renewal in six months’ time.
Mrs May
In the time available to me, it will not be possible to mention all the speeches made in the debate. However, the debate has in many ways shown the House at its best. People have made thoughtful and serious contributions on the matter in hand. They spoke from the heart and passionately on issues about which they feel deeply.
I shall simply reiterate what I said in my opening speech. The proposal in the pre-charge detention order is for a temporary measure that will enable us to look again at the 28-day period of pre-charge detention, and at how to reduce it, during the review on counter-terrorism measures.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) challenged me on why I was not going straight away to 14 days, having said that that is my personal preference. The former is correct in thinking that we want to look at the matter in the round alongside other counter-terrorism legislation, and not simply pick it off and deal with it as one issue. I can tell the latter that it is my duty to this House and to the country as a Minister to look at such issues responsibly and to consider all the arguments, and not merely to say that my view should necessarily hold supreme. My views will inform my final decision, but it is right and proper for me to consider all the arguments before I take that decision.
Mrs May
I am sorry, but I have very little time left—about one minute—so I will not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find me afterwards if he wants to make a speech to me—[Interruption.] I can assure him that that was not a comment on the name of Paisley.
The order is a temporary measure to continue 28 days pre-charge detention for just six months. That enables us to look at pre-charge detention in the counter-terrorism review, and to find a solution that reduces the limit from 28 days while ensuring that the police have the powers they need to keep us safe from those out there who would wish us ill.
Question put.
Counter-terrorism and Security Powers
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the review of counter-terrorism and security powers.
As I have said to the House before, the first duty of Government is to protect the public, but that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties—and that is what the previous Government did on far too many occasions. This Government are different. We have already introduced legislation to get rid of identity cards once and for all; we have already declared our intention to bring forward a freedom Bill later this year; and just last week I announced interim restrictions on the use of stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Today, as promised in the coalition agreement, I am announcing an urgent review of counter-terrorism and security powers. The review will consider six key powers: control orders; section 44 stop-and-search powers and the use of terrorism legislation in relation to photography; the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by local authorities and access to communications data more generally; extending the use of deportations with assurances in a manner that is consistent with our legal and human rights obligations; measures to deal with organisations that promote hatred or violence; and the detention of terrorist suspects before charge.
Those are the most controversial and sensitive powers. In particular, the issue of pre-charge detention has been the subject of considerable debate in the House, and tomorrow we will consider whether to renew the current detention limit for a further six months. That will provide us with sufficient time to look carefully at pre-charge detention in the review and to explore how we can reduce the period of detention below 28 days. The review will also help to inform us on what additional safeguards are needed in the proposed asset freezing Bill, which the Treasury will introduce shortly.
The Government’s work on the use of intercept as evidence in court and the modernisation of our interception capabilities will be done separately and will not form part of the review. The review will be conducted by the Home Office with the full involvement of the police, security and intelligence agencies and other Government Departments, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I want the review to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I have asked Liberty to contribute to the review, and it has said that it would be delighted to do so. I am keen to involve other civil liberty and community organisations and, as with other reviews, I would urge anyone with an interest to submit their views to the Home Office.
To ensure independent oversight of the review, I have asked the noble and learned Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, to make sure that the work is conducted properly, that all the relevant options have been considered and that the recommendations of the review are not only fair but seen to be fair. That role is distinct from the excellent work that is already being undertaken by the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew in his statutory role as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals made by Lord Carlile will be fully considered as part of the review and I know that he welcomes the additional independent perspective that Lord Macdonald will provide on these issues. Any legislative amendments that result from the review will of course be subject to review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I have ordered that the review should be completed as quickly as possible, because it is important that the police and the security and intelligence agencies are able to do their vital work with certainty and confidence. I will report back to Parliament on the outcome of the review after the summer recess.
Before I finish, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. In correcting the mistakes of the previous Government, we are doing just that. We are not criticising or castigating members of the police or of the security and intelligence services. They do their work with bravery, patriotism and a strong sense of duty, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to them. The review will enable this Government to put right the failures of the last Government and, in so doing, restore the ancient civil liberties that should be synonymous with the name of our country. I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving me early sight of her statement. It is important to recall that when the Terrorism Bill received its Third Reading in November 2005, it had all-party support, so both parties to the coalition Government supported the bulk of the legislation that will now be reviewed. Two things characterised that debate, which came a few months after the horror and carnage of 7/7. The first was the realisation that no change in Government policy would remove the UK from al-Qaeda’s firing line and that the only response to the threat was to contest and then defeat it. The second was the extraordinary lengths that were taken to proceed on the basis of consensus, not just with the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and the Lib Dem spokesman Mark Oaten, but with the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The threat that was faced then has not diminished. The Prime Minister put it succinctly in his statement of 6 July, when he said:
“As we meet in the relative safety of this House today, let us not forget this: as we speak, al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen are meeting in secret to plot attacks against us; terrorists are preparing to attack our forces in Afghanistan; the Real IRA is planning its next strike against security forces in Northern Ireland; and rogue regimes are still trying to acquire nuclear weapons.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 178.]
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the review is not being held to scale down the powers needed to address a diminishing threat, but is far from that? What is the latest estimate of the number of terror suspects actively engaged in complex plots and can she tell us how many such plots have been disrupted since 7/7?
The review must surely be held in the context of how those powers are working on the ground. In that context, will she provide information, if necessary on Privy Council terms, as Charles Clarke did in 2005, to allow Her Majesty’s Opposition to be fully conversant with the backdrop to this review? Will she ensure that the same spirit of consensus-seeking takes place in reviewing anti-terrorism legislation that characterised the approach to the Terrorism Act 2006?
The Home Secretary’s statement contained the immature and partisan attacks on the previous Government that are becoming rather tiresome and that are unworthy of a debate of this seriousness. Will she tell me in what way she considers the previous Government to have ridden roughshod over civil liberties on control orders, deportation with assurances, dealing with organisations that promote hatred or violence, or on the detention of terrorist suspects before charge?
On the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and in relation to some of the most widely spread myths about RIPA, is she aware that the interception of communications commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, concluded his latest annual report by saying that
“no evidence has emerged from the inspections which have been conducted during the last three years to indicate communications data is being used to investigate offences of a trivial nature, such as dog fouling or littering”?
What are the terms of reference for the review? They are not in the statement. Is it to be held purely in the context of civil liberties, or will it have a wider remit? We believe that it should. Does the Home Secretary think the time scale long enough to do justice to the issues under review? Given the fact that the Olympics are fast approaching, will they be a factor in the deliberations?
Given our joint desire to overcome the practical difficulties that prevent the use of intercept as evidence in our courts, given that 28-day detention has to be reapproved by Parliament each year and given that control orders are subject to annual report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, what further safeguards does the Home Secretary believe may be necessary? I would on this occasion appreciate some answers, given the importance of the subject.
I worry about the Government’s position on counter-terrorism. They admonish senior counter-terrorism police officers for daring to discuss in a closed meeting with colleagues the implication of a 25% cut in their funding. They refuse to give the police and the security services the same assurances on funding as they provide for the Department for International Development. They plan to diminish important weapons in the fight against crime and terrorism such as the DNA database and CCTV. The balance between collective security and individual freedom has to be carefully struck under the ever-changing and constantly evolving threat of international terrorism, but this review appears to be about one side of that balance.
Liberal Democrats should remember the words of John Stuart Mill, who said:
“All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people.”
The Government should remember that the slow creep of complacency is a phrase often used to describe the erosion of civil liberties. It is equally applicable to our vulnerability to terrorist attack.
Mrs May
Of all the things that I have seen in the couple of months since I became Home Secretary, the thing that has most struck me and surprised me has been the complete unwillingness of the Labour party to recognise what much of the counter-terrorism legislation that it introduced, and on occasions the misuse of that legislation, have done to civil liberties in this country. It has surprised me because I hoped that, in opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and his colleagues would have taken the opportunity to sit back and look at their records in government and wonder why in the past few years so many people, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, have been raising questions about the counter-terrorism legislation that the previous Government introduced. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to use the time in opposition so far to undertake that exercise.
In the counter-terrorism review, we are looking at precisely the balance that the right hon. Gentleman talks about between collective security and individual freedom. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance between collective security and individual freedom and not the wrong balance that we believe the previous Government introduced in a number of areas.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for some statistics. I can tell him that 235 people were convicted of terrorism-related offences between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2009, and a further 22 defendants were awaiting trial as at 31 December 2009. For the 28 terrorism-related trials completed in the 12 months to the end of last year, 93% were convicted, with just over half pleading guilty, and convictions included six life sentences. At the end of December 2009, 131 people were in prison for terrorism, extremist offences or charges relating to terrorism or extremism.
I am certainly not making light of the threat that exists in this country and, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, nor did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came to the House to make his statement on detainees and the publication of guidance to our security services. We recognise the level of threat in the United Kingdom, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman and members of the Labour party that our fight against those threats is not aided by legislation that is misused or that people feel encroaches on civil liberties.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could suggest legislation in which the Labour Government had ridden roughshod over civil liberties and then said they had not done so in relation to the detention of terror suspects before charging. I have to say to him that trying to introduce 90 days of pre-charge detention was indeed riding roughshod over our civil liberties. The review will look to ensure that our counter-terrorism legislation is appropriate to the level of threat and provides our police and our security and intelligence agencies with the powers that they need to combat that threat, while ensuring that we can enjoy our ancient civil liberties.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I welcome the review unreservedly and in particular the appointment of Lord Macdonald to assist with it. That is a very good sign indeed.
However, may I raise with my right hon. Friend two questions that arise from what she has just said? First, she listed the six items that will be reviewed and I hope that at some point someone will look in aggregate at the overall effect of an authoritarian approach to terrorism, which itself creates a response in terms of radicalisation. Secondly, on a more tactical basis, my right hon. Friend said that she wants the review to be open and transparent and that she wants to involve Liberty. At least one organisation has approached me to say that it has been unable to find out from the Home Office how it can make submissions to the review. Will she make sure that that is dealt with promptly?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about the review. I will of course ensure that information is available from the Home Office as to how organisations and others can make comments as part of their submissions to the review.
I take the point that it is important to look at the collective impact of legislation. We will be looking at the six individual areas, but as part of that process we shall look at the overall impact of legislation. It is that balance that is so important for us to achieve—ensuring that the legislation is not brought into disrepute because of the overall impact or because it is felt that it encroaches on important liberties.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Every new Government are entitled to review legislation in the way that the Home Secretary has suggested, and the Select Committee looks forward to seeing her on Thursday morning when we shall have the opportunity to explore these issues with her. I am grateful to her for agreeing to see us at such short notice.
May I press the Home Secretary on resources? The threat is still severe. Mr Yates has made it very clear that as far as he is concerned there will be cuts of £150 million to the counter-terrorism budget, and I understand that Home Office officials saw his speech before he delivered it to the closed session of the Association of Chief Police Officers last Thursday. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that the counter-terrorism unit, and units all over the country, have the resources they need to fight terrorism and that there will be no cut to that budget?
Mrs May
I of course want to ensure that those involved in counter-terrorism, whether in the police or other agencies, are able to undertake the job we ask them to do and which they do diligently for us day in, day out. On spending cuts, however, no specific figure has been set. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, a spending review is under way in which Departments are looking at their expenditure and it is right that the Home Office does as other Departments do. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Benches that I did not want to be in the position of looking at spending cuts in the Home Office and other Departments. The reason why we have to do so is that, in the words of the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, there is no money left. And whose fault is that? It is the Labour party’s.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I commend the Home Secretary for recognising that the very real threat to the safety of the people of this country is hindered, not helped, when people perceive that their civil liberties as well as their safety are threatened. Using terrorism powers to bundle people out of the Labour party conference, to stop people reading out names in Whitehall, or indeed to deal with the Icelandic banking crisis demonstrated how authoritarianism had taken over from rational assessment of what we need to defeat terrorism.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s statement refers to a review of powers to deal with organisations that promote hatred or violence. Does she recognise that legislation alone is never sufficient to tackle complex issues of this nature? Will she look very closely at the current Department for Communities and Local Government review of the Prevent programme, which is very much designed to make communities part of the solution, not part of the problem? This is a complex, sophisticated and difficult area to tackle, but unless she makes communities part of the solution, we will not make the progress that we need to make.
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady makes a valid point. There is a role for legislation, but of course there is a role for activity beyond legislation, and working with communities is an important part of that. The Home Office is indeed working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to assess the Prevent strategy, and to consider how that can best be focused on its proper aims. Part of it is the community-building that she has described, in addition to its counter-terrorism aspect.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At a meeting earlier today, the American anti-terrorist expert Dr Marc Sageman expressed his surprise that we do not use a method that is found to be very effective in the United States and other countries at deterring people from joining terrorist movements, which is to publish in full the transcripts of the trials that are held when plots are uncovered and disrupted. That would be a very effective mechanism, and it could also lead to television re-enactments which would show that far from these people being 10 feet tall and great warriors, they are often very banal, very stupid and very deserving of our contempt.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made an interesting point; it is not something that I had looked at. I am perfectly willing to look at it, if he would like to send me some information. He will have noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has been present and will have heard the point that he made.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Government’s first responsibility is the protection and safeguarding of the law-abiding community from acts and threats of terrorism. It is not enough to praise our security forces and services; they need to be allowed the tools and the freedom to do their job. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that no action will be taken that will compromise that responsibility, just to promote a political agenda or get something over the Opposition?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and recognise that, given the experience that he has, ensuring that the police and others have the proper powers to combat terrorism is extremely important. In responding to him, may I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, particularly last night and yesterday in Northern Ireland, given the difficulties and the troubles that arose in relation to a parade. I assure him that I fully recognise that the first duty of Government is to protect their citizens, and it is against that background that we will be conducting the review.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
In recognition of the shadow Home Secretary’s last question, I do not believe that there is any complacency in countering terrorism from this Government. However, there might be a temptation to concentrate too much, or exclusively, on the threat from Islamist fundamentalism. Will the Home Secretary assure me that the grave dangers from Irish republicanism will also be dealt with and reviewed as part of the process?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He makes an important and valid point. I can assure him that we are well aware of the increased threat that arises from dissident republicanism. That is why resources have been looked at in dealing with it in Northern Ireland. We are very conscious that there are diverse terrorist threats to the UK—they are not all from one group or one type of person.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I welcome the review and was slightly surprised that we are still, apparently, going to renew the 28-day provision tomorrow. May I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the fourth area she identified—looking into extending the use of deportations with assurances? Could she give me two assurances: first, that no one will be deported while the review is going on, and secondly, that there will be no consideration whatever of a continuing regime that allows people to be deported to countries that have not signed the relevant United Nations declarations, particularly the conventions on torture?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for focusing on that issue. He asked me to ensure that there were no deportations during the review—a rather wide commitment —but the purpose of his question was to focus on deportations with assurances. Of course, the issue arises because we have had a number of cases here in the UK where individuals have been identified as posing a terrorist threat to the UK, but because of the legal interpretations of our duties and requirements under the European convention on human rights, it has not been felt possible to deport those individuals to certain countries. We wish to continue to work with a number of other countries to ensure that it will be possible to deport people with assurances that they will not be subject to torture.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the point that the Home Secretary has just made about legal interpretation, has she taken note of the fact that many senior members of the judiciary, including the Lord Chief Justice, have raised serious concerns relating to the manner in which the convention on human rights has been interpreted by the Court in Strasbourg and that, for practical purposes, the balance between protecting civil liberties on the one hand and the security of the people on the other must be maintained? Therefore, the review is welcome, but she must take into account the fact that many senior members of the judiciary do not regard this as xenophobic legal nonsense.
Mrs May
I am happy to take into account the fact that many members of the judiciary have different views on the issues that we will review. Of course, as I said earlier, we aim to get the right balance between ensuring that we can protect members of the public and ensuring our national security, while maintaining our civil liberties.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does the review not send out completely the wrong signals to the public and, indeed, to those who would jeopardise the safety and security of the public? Would the Government’s time not be better spent backing the police and the security services with the resources and powers that they require?
Mrs May
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do indeed back the police and our security services. As I said in my statement, they do a very important job for us day in, day out, often at some risk to themselves, and we pay tribute to all the work that they do for us. But that work is not aided by a situation where many members of the public feel that certain pieces of legislation have been introduced and abused. I think that, in fact, a former Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, referred to the snooping tendencies of local authorities under RIPA. Such things do not aid the police in the work that they have to do to protect us on a daily basis.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
May I welcome the review announced by the Home Secretary today and elaborate on that? Opposition Members have spoken about how legislation was introduced under the previous Government. Often, that was easily done by arguing that it was what the security forces requested. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), it is easy to take that prosaic approach. I welcome the approach taken today; it shows a holistic and encompassing view, which promotes the fact that we in the Chamber and the Executive take these decisions for reasons of collective security against individual freedom, rather than taking such a prosaic approach.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is the job of politicians and the Government to ensure that we maintain the appropriate balance and that our counter-terrorism legislation is proportionate and focused. It is indeed the job of the Government not simply to accept every suggestions that is made to them, but to judge the value of those suggestions and decide accordingly.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
As one of the group of MPs who originally seconded the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that called for 28 days instead of 90 days, may I point out to the right hon. Lady that there was never any magic formula about 28 days—it was simply 62 days better than 90 days? I am pleased that there will be a review of this issue and that the former Director of Public Prosecutions will have an opportunity to consider that figure. If indeed he recommends 14 days, I hope that the right hon. Lady will stick by that recommendation.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, both for the action that she took previously to ensure that we did not go through with 90 days and for the point that she has made. My view is clear: we need to consider how we can reduce from 28 days. The debate tomorrow will be about the extension of the 28-day provision for six months, which gives us time to conduct the review properly, alongside all the other issues on counter-terrorism legislation that we are considering, so that we can look at that in a balanced and proportionate way.
Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
In welcoming the statement, may I remind my right hon. Friend that when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was going through the House, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made common cause in opposing the careless way in which the then Government wanted to give powers of data-mining for communications data and surveillance to a wide range of bodies, such as local authority waste departments and the Royal Parks constabulary? The issues that were looked at, such as dog fouling and littering, went far beyond what most people would consider reasonable. Will she carefully examine that Act and try to ensure that we do not have an unreasonable aggregation of powers that brings security into disrepute?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for the points that he has made. He played a very important part in the debate about that legislation when it was going through the House, and he raised exactly those points—as part of a coalition before the coalition, if I can describe it as such. We will, indeed, look carefully at the Act. Those powers have been added to over time, and as a result brought the matter into disrepute.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I, too, very much welcome the statement by the Home Secretary, who is absolutely right to roll back the anti-civil libertarian state that the previous Labour Government established. I accept that the review will start with the presumption of reducing the 28-day limit, but does she have in mind an appropriate number of days for pre-charge detention?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The review must be totally transparent, so can the Home Secretary confirm that she will publish its full terms of reference? Will she also state today that tomorrow’s renewal of the 28 day pre-charge detention period, if it proceeds, will be the last?
Mrs May
I am happy to ensure that the terms of reference are available to hon. Members. As I said in my statement, the six-month extension of the 28-day pre-charge detention period will enable us to consider that period as part of the review, and to explore how we can reduce the detention period to below 28 days.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept how much I—as somebody who voted against both 90 days and 42 days, and for 28 days only because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, it was 62 days less than 90 days —welcome the review? It is long overdue.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Under the previous Government, a photographer from Medway was arrested in Chatham high street under section 44 stop-and-search powers, and he and fellow photographers from Medway will welcome today’s announcement from the Home Secretary. Will she assure the House that any future revision of anti-terror legislation will strike the right balance between protecting the public and safeguarding the rights of individuals?
Mrs May
I am happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. She may have noticed that in my statement I specifically said that we would look at the issue of photographers and stop-and-search powers. It is one issue that has been brought home forcibly to me. I have had constituency cases of people who have been stopped under those powers and been concerned about it, and I have received a number of representations from Members of this House, and indeed of another place, about those problems.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
In the interests of promoting civil liberties and the principles of human rights while recognising the need to reduce terrorism, will the Secretary of State indicate the nature of the involvement with intelligence agencies and Government Departments in Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
I am happy to confirm that, as I said in my statement, we will of course talk to agencies and Government Departments in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will have noticed the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Chamber listening to the statement, and he is here so that we can ensure that the power that we obtain as a result of the review, and the exercise of that power, is appropriate throughout the United Kingdom.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Although the major threat to our security currently comes from militant Islamic groups, younger members of whom have been tragically brainwashed, I would like to ask a question based on the Muslim population I have in my constituency —some 1,500 people, the vast majority of whom lead decent, quiet and law-abiding lives. However, the misuse of anti-terror legislation and the Islamophobic comment in the press produce an atmosphere of insecurity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the end, this leads to a greater threat to our security, because it is essential that our security forces have at their disposal contacts within the Islamic community for intelligence purposes; and will she, in the spirit of transparency, agree to involve moderate Muslim groups in her consultation?
Mrs May
As I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed, I said in my statement that we are hoping that a number of groups will be able to be involved in the review. I fully take her point that it is important that we get the balance between security and civil liberties right. Otherwise, such measures can not only bring the legislation into disrepute but cause some people to feel insecure and to feel that what the Government are doing is simply being done against them. That is not the case. We need to look across the board at our counter-terrorism legislation, always having in mind the need to ensure that we get that balance right.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
As someone who, in the last Parliament, opposed from the Government Benches many of the previous Government’s measures in legislating disproportionately and, I believe, counter-productively on counter-terrorism, may I ask the Secretary of State to explain why, in the context of this review, the parallel powers in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 should not also be reviewed at the same time?
Will the Home Secretary give us some idea of Lord Macdonald’s role in oversight of the review? We are told that it is a Home Office review that will be conducted in liaison with other Departments but that Lord Macdonald will have oversight. Will people submitting to the review have engagement with Lord Macdonald, engagement with the Home Office, or both?
Mrs May
Anybody wishing to submit comments or proposals to the review will do so to the Home Office. Lord Macdonald’s role will be in reviewing how the review has been undertaken, to ensure that it has been done properly and that all options have been properly considered.
As for the 2007 Act, when I spoke here last week about section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the interim changes that I am making to the guidance on that, I was conscious of a number of contributions from the Opposition Benches, including, I think, from the hon. Gentleman himself, encouraging me to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had appropriate powers, some of which are in the very Act that he cited.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, the review and the attitude that is being taken to it; that is very welcome. However, I am still disappointed that she did not allow the provision for 28 days’ detention without charge to lapse during the period of the review. May I follow up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), which did not get a clear response in her statement or her answer? Will she pledge not to introduce another 28-day detention period at the end of the six months, or is she trying to maintain that option—in order, perhaps, to ask us yet again to vote for 28 days’ detention?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is encouraging me to pre-empt the result of the review. I am absolutely clear, as I said, that the review will look at the pre-charge detention period with a view to reducing it from 28 days. However, I do not want to pre-empt the result of the review, so, tempting though it might be, I would simply refer him to the comments that I made earlier.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s review of the counter-terrorism legislation. Although I was not in Parliament when this matter was debated, I was certainly campaigning against that piece of legislation. May I ask the Home Secretary to be tempted, and to bring in tomorrow a reduction from 28 to perhaps seven or 14 days?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the review, but I am afraid that I am going to give her the same answer as I gave to two of my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends—that I do not want to pre-empt the result of the review. We will have our debate tomorrow, and then, when the review reports, we will be able to look at its proposals.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on making her statement—and on allowing us to hear it in the House first, rather than in the media. Can she tell the House why intercept evidence is not being considered in the review, but is being considered separately?
Mrs May
I am happy to do so. The previous Government set up a process to consider intercept evidence, and a Privy Council group is in existence to do that. In fact, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is a member of that group. I want to talk to it about how we can take that issue forward in the best and most appropriate way, and I think it is better to do that over time rather than shoehorn it into this review.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
We had a previous Government who made legislation for the sake of legislation: in the past 13 years we had more legislation than in the previous 100 years. With regard to point two in the review mentioned by the Secretary of State—photography and terrorism—will she receive representations from the president of the Kent photographic organisation about how badly photographers have been affected by the legislation?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
A warrant is needed to enter my home, but there is not similar judicial oversight in relation to RIPA, in particular on communications access at my electronic home, or whether I am followed on the school run or my garbage is looked through. Will the review particularly consider judicial oversight of RIPA powers?
Mrs May
The review will specifically consider the use of RIPA powers by local authorities, which has been a key matter; people have been extremely concerned about the powers that are available and how those powers have been used. As I said earlier, it was a former Labour Home Secretary, I believe, who referred to those powers as a “dustbin Stasi”.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last Government got the balance between security, unlimited stop-and-search powers and liberty completely and utterly wrong?
Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
On Wednesday last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton is final. This judgment found that the stop-and-search powers granted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 amount to the violation of the right to a private life. The Court found that the powers are drawn too broadly—at the time of their initial authorisation and when they are used. It also found that the powers contain insufficient safeguards to protect civil liberties.
The Government cannot appeal against this judgment, although we would not have done so had we been able to. We have always been clear in our concerns about these powers, and they will be included as part of our review of counter-terrorism legislation.
I can, therefore, tell the House that I will not allow the continued use of section 44 in contravention of the European Court’s ruling and, more importantly, in contravention of our civil liberties. But neither will I leave the police without the powers they need to protect us.
I have sought urgent legal advice and consulted police forces. In order to comply with the judgment—but to avoid pre-empting the review of counter-terrorism legislation—I have decided to introduce interim guidelines for the police. The test for authorisation for the use of section 44 powers is, therefore, being changed from requiring a search to be “expedient” for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of its being “necessary” for that purpose; and, most importantly, I am introducing a new suspicion threshold. Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers; instead, they will have to rely on section 43 powers, which require officers reasonably to suspect the person to be a terrorist. And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have “reasonable suspicion”.
These interim measures will bring section 44 stop-and-search powers fully into line with the European Court’s judgment. They will provide operational clarity for the police. And they will last until we have completed our review of counter-terrorism laws and taken any relevant action arising from that review.
The first duty of Government is to protect the public. But that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties. I believe that the interim proposals I have set out today give the police the support they need and protect those ancient rights. I commend the statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for early sight of the statement. The fifth anniversary of 7/7 yesterday reminded us all of the threat to this country and the tremendous work of the security services and the police in protecting our citizens from harm. The Prime Minister pointed out on Tuesday—very eloquently, I thought—how real those threats continue to be.
The Home Secretary will be aware that the European Court’s judgment was based on the way that section 44 powers were used by the Metropolitan police some years ago, and that the previous Government, together with the police authorities, reviewed and improved their procedures in the intervening period. Will she confirm that the number of stop and searches under section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years? She will also be aware that all the UK courts, including the High Court and the House of Lords, rejected the argument that the Gillan and Quinton case represented a breach of article 8. In particular, the Law Lords were doubtful whether an ordinary, superficial search of the person could be said to show a lack of respect for private life. Even if article 8 did apply, they said the procedure was used in accordance with the law and it was impossible to regard a proper exercise of the power as other than proportionate when seeking to counter the great danger of terrorism.
The Home Secretary will also be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined this issue thoroughly in 2005, when the current Prime Minister was a member of that Committee, and rejected the allegation that the Asian community was being unreasonably targeted by the Metropolitan police in its use of section 44 powers. She will also know that while the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, had concerns that section 44 powers were being used too often—this was before the changes in 2007-08—he stated clearly that
“the power remains necessary and proportional to the continuing and serious risk of terrorism”.
Given all those facts, I am amazed that the Home Secretary would not have pursued an appeal, given that every court in this country rejected the argument in respect of Gillan and Quinton.
Nevertheless, we are where we are in terms of the legal avenues in Europe, and it does seem to me sensible to change the test for authorisation from “expedience” to “necessity” and to use a test of “reasonable suspicion”, but I am deeply concerned about the Home Secretary’s intention to restrict section 44 powers to searches of vehicles. That quite clearly restricts the powers of the police.
Was the Police Service of Northern Ireland consulted, given the current dissident threat in Northern Ireland? We sometimes say that there have been no terrorist murders in Britain this year; but there have been in the United Kingdom: there have been terrorist murders in Northern Ireland. What is the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and in particular the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on this restriction? Were they consulted? Was Lord Carlile consulted, and if so, what is his view?
Does the Home Secretary accept that section 43 does not require ministerial authority, and why does she believe it is necessary to go this far, by restricting section 44 to searches of vehicles only, in responding to the European Court’s judgment? Is she saying that nothing less will suffice? Did she explore other legislative options, and will she publish for consultation other options for amending section 44, so that the House can see the alternatives and debate them fully?
We have the prospect in this country of the police being asked to continue to protect us with fewer officers, diminished resources and restricted powers. The Home Secretary needs to understand that it is not the coalition agreement that will keep the public safe—it is the security services and the police. The statement today will undoubtedly make their job more difficult.
Mrs May
First, may I echo the comments that the shadow Home Secretary has made about the important work that is done by the police and by our security services? That, of course, was made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister in the statement in relation to detainees that he made in the House earlier in the week, and I echo those comments. Our police forces do sterling work for us and they go out there every day, dealing with difficult circumstances and are—we should never forget this—prepared to put their lives on the line for our safety.
Yes, I can confirm that the number of stop and searches made under the section 44 and section 43 powers has reduced significantly over time. That should not, though, leave us under any illusion that there are not still concerns, not just in relation to the European Court judgment but concerns more generally in the UK about the use of those powers; that is why, as a coalition Government, we were committed to reviewing those powers in any case in our review of counter-terrorism legislation. I believe it is absolutely right to do so.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about other options that were being looked at. Those will be considered within the counter-terrorism review. The purpose of making this statement today was to ensure that police forces have the operational guidance that they obviously need, so that they know what they should be doing now given the European Court judgment. I remind the shadow Home Secretary that I have responded to that judgment, which is clear about the two points—that these powers should be used only when they are necessary rather than expedient, and that there should be a degree of suspicion in order for the powers to be used. It is exactly that which I am now implementing in the statement and in the changes that are being made.
The shadow Home Secretary asks about restricting the use of section 44 to vehicles rather than individuals. Section 43 allows for the stop and search of individuals already with the reasonable suspicion attached to it. He mentioned Northern Ireland. I certainly do not in any way underestimate the importance of these powers in relation to Northern Ireland. I have been in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consultations have taken place in Northern Ireland on the use of these powers, but I remind the shadow Home Secretary that there are various other powers that can be used, as set out in the Northern Ireland-specific legislation. For example, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, the PSNI can stop and question individuals to ascertain identity and movements, and can stop and search people in vehicles for munitions and transmitters, and there are a variety of other powers that can be used by the PSNI.
Finally, the shadow Home Secretary said to me that I, as Home Secretary, need to understand. I think what the shadow Home Secretary needs to understand is the degree of concern that there has been about the use of these section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000—the degree of concern that did arise, not just initially from the way in which they were being used by the police, but a continuing concern about the impact on our civil liberties. I make no apology for the fact—[Interruption.] I believe the shadow Home Secretary was looking at a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and muttering about “their obsession”. I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that a desire to protect our civil liberties is not an obsession; it is something that we throughout this House should want to do, regardless of political party. I believe it is the duty of Government to balance the need to give the police the powers they need to protect us, with the need to defend our civil liberties, and I believe that is what the statement does.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
May I commend the Home Secretary for coming to the House to say what she has said today and particularly for her decision to adopt a necessary, rather than expedient, use of these powers? This is a reflection of the excessive use of counter-terrorism powers by a number of forces throughout the country. In her review of these powers, will she look at their different use in various parts of the country? We know from the London and Glasgow bombings that terrorism is not confined to England, yet the number of uses of the power in England and Wales was well over 100,000 in the past calendar year; in Scotland, it was under 100.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments on the statement and for his suggestion, which I am certainly happy to consider. He is absolutely right: the use of the powers among forces has been quite different—not just among England and Wales and Scotland, but between police forces in England and Wales.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is absolutely right to have taken the position that she has taken. There is no question of a further appeal, given the circumstances, and she is right to introduce guidelines. Will she share with the House any information about further claims for compensation, which could run to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds? We obviously look forward to probing her on these issues when she comes before the Home Affairs Committee. Can she assure us that she will return to the House regularly to continue to pursue the previous Government’s counter-terrorism agenda, where we showed zero tolerance; that the claims made by Mr Yates that, somehow, the resources will not be there are ill-founded; and that she will provide all the resources necessary to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda?
Mrs May
I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government’s intention to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda, and we will, indeed, come to the House at various stages in relation to our review of counter-terrorism legislation and any related changes that we wish to make. He asked a specific question about compensation claims. We have, of course, responded quickly to the European Court’s judgment, but the Court was clear and agreed with the Government that no compensation should be awarded given the short duration of stop-and-search powers. The finding alone was considered by the European Court as satisfaction, although it ordered the Government to pay legal costs.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State assure me that the counter-terrorism review to which she referred will draw a line under the abuse of state powers that we have seen over the past decade and that civil liberties will be sacrificed no longer for the sake of new laws that do not make us any safer?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the concern that many of us have had about the powers that were introduced by the previous Labour Government: in many cases, those powers did not introduce an increased element of safety. In fact, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the review of counter-terrorism undertaken by Lord Carlile, who said in his 2009 annual report:
“There is little or no evidence that the use of section 44 has the potential to prevent an act of terrorism as compared with other statutory powers of stop and search.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I must say that I cannot join in the collective hurrah about the removal of powers that the House, not the European Court, should be in charge of. These powers were used successfully on 10,000 occasions last year in Northern Ireland to prevent and disrupt dissident terrorists. The year before that, only 3,000 stop-and-search measures were taken under reasonable suspicion, which is much more difficult to prove and identifies a suspect who may be traced by the police when they do not want him to be identified while they are pursuing him. What measures will now be put in place to ensure that the citizens of Northern Ireland are protected fully, completely and properly from the dissident republican threat?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. Obviously, I recognise the concern that he has raised in relation to the exercise of these powers in Northern Ireland and of the revised powers that I have announced today. The PSNI has a number of other powers available to it, and I referred to a couple of them in the response that I gave earlier to the shadow Home Secretary. The PSNI will still be able to use existing legislation to conduct targeted and intelligence-led stop and searches, to protect its officers and the communities that it serves, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail about the powers that will continue to be available to the PSNI.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
May I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and express some surprise at the shadow Home Secretary’s attempt to defend the practice that has been ruled illegal? I remind the House that, in 1949, the United Kingdom was the architect of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights. Members who represent us at the Council of Europe have been embarrassed over the past few years by some of the previous Government’s actions on human rights. Therefore, in any review of anti-terrorism legislation, will we be cognisant of our obligations under the European convention?
Mrs May
I am happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his excellent service on the Council of Europe, which he has undertaken over a number of years. Just as the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), we are cognisant in our work to review counter-terrorism legislation of the need to redress the balance between ensuring that our police have the powers necessary to protect the public and protecting our ancient civil liberties.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s statement today. She will know that I raised these matters in a series of parliamentary questions after the original judgment was issued. What those parliamentary questions elicited was widespread variation in how the powers had been applied. What steps will she take now to hold those chief constables to account for the way in which they abused the powers that were available to them, thus bringing the whole use of the powers into contempt by members of the public?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, this has indeed been a matter of concern to him for some time. He is right to say that the use of the powers has been variable among forces and over time. It is, of course, within the Secretary of State’s remit to ensure that they are used partly through the authorisations, which must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the appropriate level of police putting those authorisations in place. Of course, we will revert to this issue in the counter-terrorism legislation review, and we will consider that matter at that time.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
If the coalition is obsessed with defending civil liberties, I am proud of that fact. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the balance between civil liberties and safeguarding our security is adequately redressed with these changes to section 44; or does she believe that further changes may be required to section 44 after the counter-terrorism legislation review?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The whole point of making the statement today is to ensure that an interim position is available to the police, so that they have operational guidance and clarity about the powers that they can exercise, but precisely because I feel that we need to take a wider look at section 44 and to look at it in the context of other counter-terrorism legislation, we will continue to consider it within the review. I cannot say at this stage whether any further changes will be introduced, but that would be done in the wider context of the review of all counter-terrorism legislation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. The European Court judgment was clear; the previous Government’s attempt to appeal against it has failed; and she has acted properly in the decision that she has announced today. Does the earlier draft of the Home Secretary’s statement that has gone into circulation and that referred to Northern Ireland, particularly to the approach to the parades season, in any way corroborate the suspicion that these powers have been used as a matter of convenience by the police on matters that are not directly a situation where terrorism is suspected? [Interruption.] A draft has gone into circulation somehow that made reference to Northern Ireland and the approach to the marching season. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is aware of that, but certainly I and others received that draft. That feeds the suspicion that the power has been used more generally. Does she agree that section 44 was a misjudgment in legislation which has led in some cases to a misapplication of law enforcement?
Mrs May
I am concerned about the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, although I thank him for his comments on the statement. I assure him that the statement that I have made is the one that was drafted and that I saw this morning in the Home Office before I came to the Chamber. I am concerned if he has seen an alternative version, and I will look into that matter. I am very conscious of the possible impact in Northern Ireland. That is precisely why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have been discussing this issue over a number of days, and he has been consulting in Northern Ireland on the statement’s impact. I believe that the PSNI had been exercising its powers under the legislation in relation to necessity and reasonable suspicion, and it can continue to do so as a result of the statement that I have made today. As I indicated in an earlier response, other powers will still be available to the PSNI.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the police can continue to use existing stop-and-search powers to combat drug dealers and those carrying knives and guns, and that counter-terrorism legislation ought never to be used for those purposes?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which enables me to be clear that the other stop-and-search powers are not affected by the statement. The statement relates to the Terrorism Act 2000, particularly section 44, although other sections are part of the change. I am changing the guidance on section 44, but other stop-and-search powers are still available to police.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I accept that the Home Secretary has acted speedily in view of the Court’s decision. Will the interim guidelines be published? Although I accept her point about civil liberties, is she confident that police officers will not now go in fear of disciplinary action as they attempt to exercise reasonable suspicion in their efforts to protect the rest of us?
Mrs May
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I am confident that that will not be the case. The purpose of the statement today, as he recognises, is to give clarity at as early a stage as possible to police officers on how they are to operate the guidelines. The guidelines will be published, including in the Hansard report of my statement.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Home Secretary should realise that the new guidelines will be very welcome in Kent, where we have had to deal with a number of criticisms of the use of stop-and-search, particular with respect to the climate camp at Kingsnorth. Does she agree that although senior police officers should be consulted on such matters, it is essential that national policy guidance should be determined by her, as the Minister accountable to Parliament, and not the Association of Chief Police Officers?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His observation of the difficulty arising from the exercise and use of those powers in Kent shows precisely why there has been fairly widespread concern about them. He is entirely right, which is why I have come to Parliament today to make this statement. The decision on the guidance that is issued to police forces is one that I have taken as Home Secretary.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Last December, I was subject to section 44—[Interruption.] Fortunately, I was sent away and everything was fine, but nevertheless I felt that my liberties as a citizen had been infringed on, and a sense of grievance, albeit a small one, against the authorities. [Interruption.] My great problem with what the previous Government did is this: if we believe in liberal democracy, we must also hold out strongly for its values. We weaken those values at great cost. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The shadow Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), mutters from a sedentary position, “It was random,” but that is the whole point of the European Court judgment. There needs to be a degree of suspicion if the police are to stop and search somebody. On the rest of my hon. Friend’s question, it is important for us to defend our civil liberties. I believe that that is the task of everybody in the House, and I am only sorry that the previous Government chose to infringe those civil liberties in some of their legislative decisions.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be safe, we must keep the whole country on side and ensure that no group feels persecuted or victimised, and that today’s announcement is a welcome step in the right direction?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely valid point. It is in a sense an extension of the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—notably, one difficulty was that parts of the community felt that the way in which the stop-and-search powers were used was disproportionate. The concerns were such that they began to bring into disrepute the police’s ability to keep us safe at the same time as we, as a Parliament, maintained our civil liberties.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she confirm that there will be no increase in police paperwork as a result of the changes?
Speaker’s Statement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
On Monday the shadow Home Secretary, in exchanges across the Floor of the House, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in a subsequent point of order, complained that details of a Home Office statement on non-EU migration had been passed to the media before the statement itself was delivered to the House. I undertook to look into the matter and to report back to the House. Having made inquiries, I am now able to update the House.
I have established that at a Home Office press briefing on Monday morning, copies of a statement were made available to journalists—[Interruption.] Order. The content of that statement was very similar to that delivered orally in the House by the Home Secretary on Monday afternoon. As Members know, I am concerned that Ministers should make key statements to the House before they are made elsewhere. In this case the opposite happened, and this was a discourtesy to the House. The Home Secretary is present, and will wish to take this opportunity to say something.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I deeply regret the fact that on Monday, in my attempt to assist the House by changing from making a written ministerial statement to making an oral statement, the copy of the statement that would have been made in writing to the House was handed out to the press before I made my oral statement. I take full responsibility for that, and I have no hesitation in apologising to the House and in assuring the House that I will ensure that it will not happen again.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has said, and I will take—[Interruption.] Order. I will take no points of order on that matter.